Employment Tribunals Survey

Lord McCarthy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will place in the Libraries of both Houses those parts of the 1998 survey of employment tribunals for which they have full data sets or robust data, in particular those which relate to the 64 per cent of applications to the employment tribunals which come from employees who have not attempted to resolve matters directly with their employers in the first instance, as cited in the government consultation paper Routes to Resolution.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to my Answer to his Question of 20th November. As I said then, we plan to publish the full report and data set on the applicant and employer surveys and place them in the House Library later this month, recognising the desire of your Lordships to see them before the Second Reading of the Employment Bill 2001.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am not certain that I quite heard the Minister. Did he say that he was going to publish the documents before Second Reading?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is an advance. I remind the Minister that he previously said that that would be done by the Bill's Committee stage. I assume that he has read this important but, we think, totally wrong survey. If he has done so, can he tell me what it actually says and what the question actually is? Was the question answered in exactly the same way by workers and employers? The Minister referred to the figure of 64 per cent, but he has sometimes referred to 62 per cent and once to 37 per cent. That could involve any combination of employers and employees. If we can have that information this afternoon, now that the Minister has read the report, why cannot we read the report today?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we moved the date forward because we wanted the House to have the report before Second Reading. Clearly, the statistic is open to interpretation. For those who have not followed this matter in detail, I should explain the statistic. People were asked whether they had had a meeting before they went to a tribunal. The interpretation turns on those who said that they had no meeting and had had other correspondence or communication to solve the matter. That is clearly a matter of interpretation. That is why it is right to put the data set and the question—and all the questions—in the Library so that everyone can form their own view.
	Too much weight has been put on the particular figure. The survey and all the other information that we have makes it clear that employers and employees are not using grievance procedures properly before going to a tribunal. That may be partly because people are not using the procedures and in other cases it is clearly because there are no procedures. We want to make certain that they do so before going to a tribunal.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the Minister recognises that a number of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on this and other occasions are extremely germane—if that is not tautologous—to the Employment Bill, which is about to come before this House. Does the Minister accept that it is a problem that the House of Commons did not have the information before the Bill was passed and sent to your Lordships' House? Will he undertake that when we debate that Bill, he will not, in this regard, use the argument that it has already been through the House of Commons?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that I would never do that, and I certainly will not in this case.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister have any more recent figures? Having sat for 20 years or more on an industrial tribunal, I wonder whether what I read in the papers is correct; namely, that there has been a great increase in the number of applications to industrial tribunals since 1998. If so, can he give us recent statistics showing how the figures compare?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is common ground to everyone that there has been a very substantial increase. Equally, it is clear that there are very good reasons for that, which relate to legislation, changes in the workforce, and so on. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy pointed out when previously we debated the issue, there is an excellent report on this matter showing how the various social trends have impacted on the rise in applications. I do not think that that alters the fact that not enough people, either previously or currently, are making use of grievance procedures.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether any figures are available on the number of applications to tribunals that are concerned with unfair dismissals, in relation to which the use of internal procedures may not be appropriate or even possible?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give particular figures on that. Clearly, there is a percentage in relation to which it would be wrong to expect people to use the procedures, because harassment or other issues are involved. The legislation is, of course, drafted very clearly so that such people do not have to use grievance procedures before going to tribunals.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why, just before the TUC conference, the Government dropped their proposal to charge fees for bringing cases to employment tribunals?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is throughout the Bill obviously a question of accessibility. It is absolutely key that accessibility should be given to people to allow them to go to a tribunal. As we shall see when we consider the Bill, we are very concerned about that and in no way want to stop it. At the same time, we want to make certain that grievance procedures are in place and that they are used.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, can my noble friend slip on something a little more transparent? Does he recognise that that is the only statistic from any piece of research, contrary to the previous research by his own department, that indicates that there is a need to take powers, as the Bill will do, to prevent people having access to employment tribunals? Will he tell us now how many of the so-called defaulting 64 per cent—or 62 per cent, or whatever the figure is; he has seen the figures and we have not—made approaches to management other than in the first instance and directly, by telephone, by some other means other than a meeting or through representatives? What are the percentages relating to that category, which is recognised in the background paper that his department produced? What percentage of cases involve matters such as sexual harassment, racial harassment and the like, in relation to which, the research suggests, a direct approach in the first instance for a meeting would have been inappropriate?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, although I believe that it is better to wait for the full report, I can give your Lordships one figure which is absolutely clear. In 37 per cent of cases there was no communication whatever; that is, there was no meeting and no grievance procedure and no contact was made. Under any consideration, that is a substantial figure. We are not trying to stop people going to tribunals. However, we want them to make use of grievance procedures and, more importantly, we want to ensure that grievance procedures are in place. I believe it has been forgotten that that is a key part of the Bill. It is equally true that 12 per cent of workplaces with 10 or more employees have no disciplinary procedure and 10 per cent of workplaces with 10 or more employees have no grievance procedure. I believe that those figures are equally important when considering this issue.

Young People: Summer Activity Programmes

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements and funding are in place for providing young adults with summer jobs and activities for 2002, especially in areas of social deprivation and community tension.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Connexions service, working with key local partners, offers guidance to young people looking for jobs and other personal development activities during the summer. The Government are committed to providing activity programmes which develop self-esteem and interpersonal skills and promote community cohesion by enabling young people from different backgrounds to work together in structured and purposeful activities. More than £20 million of public funding will be available for activity programmes in the summer of 2002.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and welcome the information that she gave. However, can Her Majesty's Government also apply some of the measures implemented in the United States following the community disturbances there in the 1960s when the public and private sectors organised huge numbers of summer job opportunities for young adults? How will the Government assist the urgent expansion this year of summer programmes for young adults in the UK by agencies, universities, the voluntary sector and industry?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am fully aware of the programmes that were developed in the US in the 1960s and, indeed, of some of those developed in the 1980s. However, some programmes in the United States were later criticised because they were designed primarily to give manual jobs to young people during the summer and did not include the type of interpersonal and other skills development that we would want to see.
	Therefore, our focus has been on combining finding activities for young people and developing their skills. As I said, the Connexions service, and the Careers Service where Connexions has not yet rolled out, will provide advice and guidance. We shall be looking to develop summer activities for 16 year-olds. Approximately £13 million will fund about 16,000 young people in 2002. The Home Office summer programmes and the Youth Justice Board programmes will also be running. In addition, Millennium Volunteers, with an annual budget of £15 million, is seeking to sign up 100,000 people by December 2003. The Higher Education Active Community Fund has £27 million to support 14,000 higher education students and will run until August 2004.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what is happening in areas such as Burnley, Bradford and Oldham and whether the community is participating in the framework in devising programmes which are geared in particular at the employment of young people in those areas?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, the purpose of many of those programmes is to enable communities which are most in need to provide such activities. The Bridging the Gap report highlighted that as a critical point in determining the futures of young people. We know that those who drift into economic inactivity at the age of 16 are more likely to be unemployed by the age of 21. That is one of the driving forces in developing those schemes.

Lord Patel of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an empty mind is a dangerous mind and that the root cause of riots in Leeds, Bradford, Oldham and Burnley was unemployment and lack of activity? If so, what method of communication do Her Majesty's Government propose to ensure that the benefit of schemes reaches under-privileged young adults?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the primary method is the use of the Connexions service, which is being set up. Noble Lords will be aware that the service is currently being established in the 47 learning and skills council areas. The service will work with 13 to 19 year-olds, and a prime motivation behind it is to ensure that all such opportunities are related to young people. But, of course, we are also keen that the youth service works with young people, and we are providing an additional £30 million to the Transforming Youth Work Development Fund for work of that kind.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me, as someone who in the past has worked on housing estates in Southwark, Lambeth and Camden, a warm welcome for the investment that the Government are making in this area? Does she agree that this is a way in which to introduce greater social cohesion? Does she also agree that people at university are encouraged to consider entering teaching, social work and other professions by learning about the conditions of people who perhaps have a very different experience from their own?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for those comments. I believe that it is important that government learn from the experience. For that reason, an expert task force will be brought together. It will include specialists from local areas who have practical experience and are able to work with us to develop the programmes to greater effect.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Baroness is familiar with the findings of the summer schemes which have been in place for younger children. Those schemes show that children approach secondary school with a great deal more confidence and a higher expectation to do well. Can she tell me whether similar findings have emerged from the very innovative schemes that have just started in terms of, for example, take-up of further education and attitudes towards criminal behaviour?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, such evidence is beginning to mount in relation to both the areas to which the noble Baroness referred. The draft evaluation report from the Connexions summer activity scheme said that 75 per cent of the participants agreed that the programme had influenced their plans for the future and that the greatest influence was an encouragement to return to further education. Equally, with regard to the Youth Justice Board "Splash" programme, 102 such programmes took place in the year 2000. They involved 20,000 young people who had come "off the streets", as it were, and participated over the five weeks of the summer. We know that the total crime rate fell by 6 per cent against a national average of 3.8 per cent; that criminal damage fell by 14.2 per cent compared with a national rise of 8 per cent; and that domestic burglary fell by 26.6 per cent compared with a national rise of 8 per cent.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether such programmes will be accessible to those with disabilities and special educational needs? Will children in care be able to take part in the programmes?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as always the noble Baroness raises an important point. My understanding is that they will. I shall refer that point back to the department to ensure that that is fully taken on board.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister clarify some of the figures that she has mentioned? First, she spoke of £20 million and then of £30 million for young people. She has also floated the figures of £15 million and £27 million. Can she tell the House how much money is available for this project?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friend behind me to say "Lots". If I have confused the House, I apologise. The figure of £20 million specifically refers to activities that take place in the summer. I gave more blanket figures, as the noble Baroness has, quite rightly, pointed out concerning the different programmes that are under way. The £20 million is certainly committed.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the task force report into the services available in Burnley last June and has she seen the section of that report that was drafted and prepared by the young people on the task force? I commend the report to her. I would appreciate her assuring the House that her officials will consider some of the recommendations put forward by the young people in relation to what they consider is necessary to engage them during summer breaks.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that nothing is more important than the experience of the young people themselves. They know exactly what they would like and they know what is missing. A crucial part of any development is that they should be involved. I shall refer back the comments made by my noble friend.

Economic Growth

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to sustain economic growth to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecast as set out in page 3 of the Pre-Budget Report.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the frameworks for fiscal and monetary policy, which have been in place since 1997, and the Government's tough decisions in reducing the public debt to a sustainable level have ensured that the United Kingdom has the best possible chance of sustaining healthy economic growth in a climate of global weakness.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, with the reduced growth rate in the last quarter of last year of 0.2 per cent—1.9 per cent on an annual basis—and with the prospects for growth this year being as bleak as they are, how can the Government seriously consider raising taxation, which will depress growth still further? Is there a new wealth-creating agenda, as described by the Chancellor in The Times this morning?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to The Times. I do not know whether he heard the Chancellor speaking on the "Today" programme this morning. We have only the preliminary estimate for GDP growth for 2001, which is 2.4 per cent. That is slightly above the figure expected in the Pre-Budget Report. The report expects growth in 2002 to be between 2 and 2.5 per cent. The premise of the noble Lord's question is not accurate.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the Minister speaks of a provisional estimate of 2.4 per cent for GDP last year. Is he at all concerned that last year the British economy suffered the steepest fall in manufacturing output since the depth of the recession in 1991, combined with the fastest growth in personal borrowing since the peak of the Lawson boom in 1990? How long can that situation be sustained? Surely consumer credit is far too easy and the squeeze on industry is far too tight.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have never denied that there are particular difficulties for manufacturing industry. We are glad to debate that at any time. The estimate of growth for last year is pretty well complete. Our expectation of growth in 2002 is that it will be faster than in any other G7 country. That is not simply a Treasury estimate; it is a view held by the IMF, the OECD and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It is a fairly widely held view.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, an important part of that growth is provided by exports of our manufacturing industry in particular. In that context he will also be aware of the importance of the exchange rate. One of the objectives of Her Majesty's Government is to have a stable and competitive exchange rate. Is it currently stable and competitive?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is indeed the Government's objective to have a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. That does not mean that we have an exchange rate target at any particular period in time; we do not have a particular exchange rate target now. A stable and competitive pound can be achieved only through sound public finances and through low and stable inflation.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, how important does the Minister regard the EU's stability and growth pact in sustaining economic growth as compared with the golden rule?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, our own criteria contribute, and have contributed, successfully over the past five years to the stability of the economy and to the public finances in this country. The stability and growth pact is an additional criterion to which we pay considerable attention.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, Members on the Government Front Bench like to wear their hearts on their sleeves in relation to the National Health Service. They routinely condemn our Benches for heartless cruelty. How, then, did they feel on discovering that, in the five years since they came to power, they have invested less in health and in education than any government in any five-year period since the Second World War?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am more inclined, as I have said previously, to be a "speak your weight" machine rather than to wear my heart on my sleeve. I do not recognise the noble Lord's figures as being accurate. I should be glad to hear them in more detail, but in any case they do not appear to be relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, returning to my noble friend's supplementary question, is the Minister confident that the Chancellor recognises that the world slow-down—not to say recession—would be a great deal worse had it not been for the 10 dollar a barrel fall in the price of oil over the past year, which was a major fiscal stimulus to the world? Does he recognise that to increase taxation now would undo that good and that the Government have plenty of scope to borrow, as far as it may be necessary, and that at present it is cheap to do so?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no particular insight into the Chancellor's mind, nor do I know what facts he retains in it, particularly in the period running up to the Budget. That confirms my view that I should not express opinions about taxation levels in the run-up to the Budget.

Gibraltar

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they still intend to offer Spain joint sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government resumed talks with Spain in July 2001 in accordance with the terms of the Brussels communiqué issued in November 1984. At the most recent round of talks under the Brussels process, which took place in London yesterday, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister reaffirmed their common aim of concluding a comprehensive agreement before the summer, covering all outstanding issues, including co-operation and sovereignty. A copy of the joint communiqué issued after that meeting has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Have the British Government sought an undertaking from the Government of Spain that, in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting in a referendum any joint proposals put forward by Britain and Spain, Spain will respect that decision of the people of Gibraltar and will, in the words of Mr Hain, treat Gibraltarians as they are entitled to be treated and not resort to harassment and interference with their rights of free movement?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will know that we have pressed the Government of Gibraltar to be involved in the current discussions. Noble Lords will know that we have proposed that a framework agreement should come out of those talks which will then be followed by a referendum. If the people of Gibraltar vote "yes", it will be implemented; if they vote "no", it will not.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Brussels process which began under the previous Conservative administration included reference to all difficulties between the countries, including sovereignty? Would it not be timely now to have the full participation of the Gibraltar Government in these talks? There would then be no question of the Gibraltar government appearing to be an obstacle to the co-operation which is required at this stage in order to achieve an acceptable agreement which may ensure the prosperous future of Gibraltar in Europe, including a more clear and distinct status for those who live there.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that the Brussels process began in 1984 under the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and that sovereignty was one of the issues discussed in that process. We would very much welcome the full participation of the Government of Gibraltar in this process. We have sought their participation at every stage. I agree with the noble Lord that we all seek a prosperous future for Gibraltar within the European Union.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I trust that the new arrangement will lead to a happier approach from Spain, but will my noble friend confirm that the present democratic character of the governance of Gibraltar will continue while the people of Gibraltar want it? Should not their wishes count for rather more than the arrangements made in the Treaty of Utrecht which was signed almost 300 years ago in a pre-democratic Europe?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are very concerned to ensure that the views of the people of Gibraltar are taken into account in this process, but the Treaty of Utrecht remains important. We shall continue to look at the issues under discussion through the Brussels process in the context of the Treaty of Utrecht.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister recall the very wise observation of Gibraltar's Chief Minister, Mr Peter Caruana, that you cannot expect Spain to join in discussions of this topic without being,
	"free . . . to raise the matter that is of most interest to them, and that is sovereignty".
	In the light of the wisdom of that observation by the Chief Minister, would it not be appropriate for him to take full advantage of the opportunity to take part in the talks on behalf of the people of Gibraltar?
	Finally, can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will continue to press the Government of Spain to abandon absolutely any form of coercion, intimidation or obstruction if the matter is to proceed as we would all wish it to do?

Baroness Amos: My Lord, we would greatly welcome Chief Minister Caruana's participation in the talks. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe have both, in discussions with the Chief Minister, sought his participation in the talks under the "two flags, three voices" formula which was requested by them.
	With respect to the noble and learned Lord's question about the harassment of the people of Gibraltar, he will know that we have raised our concerns about, for example, border delays with the European Commission. It has engaged in discussions with the Government of Spain. My noble friend Lady Symons reported to the House that, with respect to concerns about telephones, the Spanish Government have undertaken to ensure that 70,000 additional lines are made available to the people of Gibraltar.

Lord Radice: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the joint sovereignty idea is one worth pursuing? Is there not something in it for all the parties—the British retain a share in sovereignty; the Spanish get a share in the sovereignty for the first time; and the Gibraltarians retain a special status? Would not joint sovereignty remove an issue which has bedevilled British/Spanish relations for many years?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, our intention is to work to resolve all the differences between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. We aim to do four things: preserve Gibraltar's way of life; establish greater self-government in Gibraltar; deliver practical benefits, including a stronger economy and an end to problems such as border delays; and end the dispute with Spain through lasting agreement on issues such as sovereignty.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Ofsted annual report. It is hoped that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and before the speech of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in the Second Reading debate on the Police Reform Bill.

Export Control Bill

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave a short explanation about the matter. At Second Reading of the Export Control Bill a number of concerns were raised by noble Lords. They concerned the way that sustainable development criteria were dealt with in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, also raised some significant points concerning the drafting of the schedule to the Bill. To meet these important points the Government yesterday tabled a number of amendments which I believe deal satisfactorily with those two concerns.
	I have also placed in the Library of the House a briefing note explaining the effect of the key amendments to assist noble Lords further in their consideration of the amendments. As these amendments involve a significant re-ordering in the clauses and a redrafting of the schedule, I thought that it was important that all these amendments should be tabled together so that noble Lords can fully understand their impact. The amendments that we have tabled today have most impact on Clauses 5, 7 and 8 and the schedule to the Bill. My purpose in seeking agreement to this order of consideration is to give noble Lords a reasonable amount of time to consider the amendments.
	The order of consideration, if accepted, will mean that on Thursday we shall consider Clauses 1 to 4, Clause 6 and Clause 9. These clauses contain the key order-making powers of the Bill. There will be many important issues to debate on them, but they are not greatly affected by the amendments. The order of consideration, if accepted, will also mean that we shall consider Clauses 5, 7 and 8 and the schedule to the Bill on the second day of Committee. Noble Lords will therefore have more time to consider them.
	To aid in this consideration I shall be holding a meeting tomorrow afternoon to provide briefing on the proposals to all noble Lords who would find that helpful. I commend this Motion to the House.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Export Control Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 4, Clause 6, Clause 9, Clause 5, Clauses 7 and 8, Clauses 10 to 15, Schedule.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Police Reform Bill must be seen in a wider context than just the Bill itself. Last December, the Government set out a wide-ranging programme of reform in the White Paper Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, which was the subject of a Statement in your Lordships' House.
	The single most important measure of success of the reform programme is whether the changes that we are taking forward with the police service will make a real and visible difference to the quality of life of individuals and communities. It is important to continue the reduction in crime and improve detection and conviction rates, but this must be matched by a reduction in the fear of crime. We need to tackle not just serious crime but also the antisocial behaviour and incivility which is most people's experience of crime and disorder.
	It is clear from the responses to the White Paper that the police service accepts that challenge. There is widespread recognition from the police staff associations and the Association of Police Authorities that policing cannot stand still and we must put aside the mentality that nothing can be done. Much has already been done. The British Crime Survey of 2001 recorded an overall reduction in crime of 12 per cent—the largest annual fall in the 20 years of the survey. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the overwhelming majority of dedicated and professional police officers and support staff for that success. It is an example of all that is best in public service.
	However, crime is still far too high and the recent fall in crime has not been matched by a commensurate fall in the fear of crime, so there is much still to do. To succeed, we need a more professional service, better led, better trained, better equipped and working in partnership with others. I repeat that the Police Reform Bill is not the only vehicle to move forward the reform agenda. Other measures are being taken through administrative and other means, many of which were set out in the White Paper.
	This spring, we have a record number of police officers in post. By spring next year, we expect to have 130,000 officers in post. Funding for the police is up by 20 per cent over the current three-year spending period. The Police Standards Unit has been established and its first director appointed. There is a new Police Leadership Development Board. We have already established the Police Skills and Standards Organisation, and the Central Police Training and Development Authority is to be launched in April.
	We have also secured agreement in principle—I watch my words carefully here—with all sides on the Police Negotiating Board to a package of reforms on police pay and conditions. That is all that I propose to say today on that matter, which is not covered by the Bill but which will be the subject of a ballot tomorrow. We have worked closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and others in developing the proposals in the White Paper and the Bill. We continue to work in partnership as we move towards implementation.
	Briefly, I shall go through the parts of the Bill. I understand that some parts are probably more contentious and will be subject to more debate than others during our subsequent proceedings. Part 1 refers to,
	"Powers of the Secretary of State".
	We want all police forces to operate to the same high standards. Much good practice is in evidence, including real, positive areas of excellence. But good practice is not consistent within all forces, nor is it consistently applied across the country. The Home Secretary has a duty to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to support the identification and dissemination of good practice and to intervene where performance falls below an acceptable level.
	We also need to address the frustrations faced by officers doing their best in difficult circumstances—frustrations caused by excessive bureaucracy, poor information technology, having to cover for colleagues on sick leave and poor support from other local agencies. The new framework that we are setting up will help to deliver user-friendly, compatible IT systems, a common, rigorous approach to management of sickness and effective local partnerships. We want the focus to be on improving performance and delivering a police service of the highest quality, not on centralising or politicising the police service.
	The provisions in Part 1 build on, not replace, the framework of the Police Act 1996. We value the tripartite structure and respective roles of the Home Secretary, the chief officers and the police authorities. Those will remain essentially as now. There will continue to be 43 police forces, operating under the direction and control of 43 chief constables and accountable locally to 43 police authorities. But, at the end of the day, the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the service and, as such, must be able to make a difference in his office. We must focus on priorities that will deliver a better service to the public.
	The Home Secretary plans to publish an annual national policing plan. The plan will set out the Government's strategic priorities for policing over a three-year period. It will include the Home Secretary's objectives for police authorities and plans for issuing guidance and codes of practice and for making regulations. The plan will also set out other priorities, such as in the area of science and technology. In drawing up the plan, the Government will work closely with our tripartite partners and other stakeholders. As suggested by the Association of Police Authorities, we propose to set up a non-statutory national policing forum as a focal point for discussion of the national policing plan and thereafter to review its progress.
	In addition to setting out the strategic priorities at national level, we shall also be strengthening police authorities' capacity to plan for the medium to long term. Many authorities already plan beyond the one year covered by existing police plans. The Bill will imbed good practice by requiring police authorities to produce three-year strategy plans that must be consistent with the national policing plan.
	Part 1 also establishes all-important machinery for delivering high standards. The White Paper set out a three-tiered approach for identifying and promulgating good practice: regulations, codes of practice and guidance. Regulations are needed where it is essential for effective policing that all forces act in the same way, for example, for common information technology and communications systems. Codes of practice are appropriate where there are important practices that should be in evidence in all forces, but with some scope for local variation to take account of local circumstances. An example is the delegation of budgets and responsibility of basic command units. Guidance is appropriate where there is more general good practice that needs to be made widely available but flexibly applied to meet local needs. In most cases, guidance will continue to be issued on a non-statutory basis by the Home Office, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, ACPO and others.
	The process will be overseen by the Police Standards Unit, which has a key role in identifying good practice that delivers improvement in performance. The standards unit will commission the National Centre for Policing Excellence, which will be part of the Central Police Training and Development Authority, to advise on policy to be enshrined in regulations and draft codes of practice. ACPO will be centrally involved in that work, as will others with relevant experience of issues under consideration.
	The onus will continue to be on individual chief constables to manage their force efficiently and effectively and on the local police authority to ensure that that happens. But where there is clear evidence from the inspectorate of constabulary, the standards unit or elsewhere that that is not the case, the Home Secretary cannot stand idly by and do nothing. In the last resort, it must be open to the Home Secretary to ensure that remedial measures are taken to raise performance to an acceptable level. That will be especially important where there is consensus about best practice and the force's failure to implement it has led to adverse performance in a given area.
	The Bill does not provide for the taking over of the management of a force, or of a basic command unit, or for sending in "hit squads". I draw your Lordships' attention to proposed new subsection (8) in Clause 5, which is worth having continually uppermost in our minds. It states:
	"Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State to direct the inclusion in an action plan of any requirement to do or not to do anything in a particular case identified for the purposes of the requirement, or in relation to a particular person so identified".
	It is not a question of the Home Secretary taking over policing and police authorities. The chief constable will be required to draw up and implement an action plan approved by the Home Secretary, after consultation with the police authority, to address the serious weaknesses that have been identified. Where necessary, the Home Secretary may give directions about the content of the action plan, but as I said, any direction may not be in relation to a particular individual or case. Decisions in respect of such matters will remain exclusively with the chief officers.
	Part 2 of the Bill deals with complaints and misconduct. It establishes the independent police complaints commission and a new system for the investigation of complaints against the police and police support staff. Arrangements will also provide for the investigation of serious conduct matters where no complaint is made. That is nothing new; it follows extensive consultation in recent years. There has been strong support from all the key stakeholders in the police service.
	I shall be brief about this matter. The new system will deliver greater openness and certainly better accessibility for complainants and greater independence. Greater openness will be achieved by the presumption in favour of the maximum disclosure of information to the complainant, subject to a sensitivity test. There will be improved access, facilitated by allowing a representative of an aggrieved person or an independent group to make a complaint on his or her behalf.
	The position of complainants will also be strengthened by new rights of appeal at three levels. The complainant will be able to appeal to the commission against the refusal of a force to record his or her complaint. Where a complainant has agreed to follow the local resolution process, he may appeal if that process has not been properly used. At the end of the investigation, a complainant may appeal on the outcome, on the question of disclosure of sufficient information and on the proposed disciplinary action, if any, against the officer concerned.
	The complaints commission will be the guardian of the new system. It will ensure greater independence by having oversight of all serious cases or cases with the potential for high public interest. In the case of the more serious complaints, including allegations of serious corruption or racist conduct or involving the death or serious injury of a member of the public, the commission will take over either management or supervision of the police investigation. In the most serious cases, the commission itself will take on the investigation, particularly where there is a high degree of public interest.
	The commission will have its own body of independent investigators with all necessary police powers. It will be entitled to employ whomsoever it chooses; there will be no bar, save for the degree of competence. It will be in control of its own body of independent investigators. At the end of an investigation, if the commission is not satisfied with the action taken by the force, it can intervene in disciplinary proceedings by presenting or instructing counsel on the case against an officer. Taken together, those reforms should result in a complaints system in which the police and those who have a grievance against the police can have full confidence.
	I accept that I have been extremely brief in explaining the new system and how it differs from the present system. We imply no criticism of individual members of the Police Complaints Authority—far from it. We wish to give them a greater role.
	Part 3 relates to the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers. It must be read in the context of our wider proposals for building strong and effective leadership in the police force. The White Paper set out measures for nurturing top quality leadership at all levels, through better selection procedures, better training and improved arrangements for professional performance appraisals, including at the highest levels. It is likely to be only very exceptional circumstances that will warrant the early departure of a chief officer. Where such circumstances arise, it is right and proper that there be effective and transparent arrangements in place to enable appropriate action to be taken, in the interests of the force and all the individuals concerned.
	The existing procedures, provided for in the 1996 Act, are cumbersome and unduly restrictive. They provide only for the retirement of a chief officer in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. There may be occasions on which retirement is not the appropriate course. Part 3 provides for the alternative of resignation. Whichever route is taken—resignation or retirement—the process can necessarily take a long time to complete. By its nature, such action is initiated only in very grave circumstances. Allowing such a situation to continue for any time could significantly impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Accordingly, Part 3 provides for the suspension of a chief officer by the police authority, pending its consideration of an appropriate course of action and, thereafter, pending completion of the removal process. As under the existing legislation, the Home Secretary would, as a last resort, be able to call upon a police authority to exercise its powers of removal and suspension.
	Chapter 1 of Part 4 deals with the exercise of police powers by civilians. It is generally accepted that the police cannot fight crime and the fear of crime alone. To face down anti-social, loutish behaviour and reduce the fear of crime that such behaviour instils, we must provide more visible policing in town centres and housing estates. Many public, voluntary and private bodies already employ a variety of personnel, including neighbourhood, street and park wardens and shopping centre security staff, who contribute to community safety. Part 4 builds on the work of such groups.
	We must also make the most effective use of police officers' time. Last year, we published the findings of a study of how 400 officers spent their time on duty. I think that it was called The Diary of a Police Officer. The study found that officers spent almost as much time in the police station as on the street. The figure was 43 per cent. Of the remaining 57 per cent of their time, when they were out on the street, only 17 per cent was spent on what was colloquially called by the consultants "reassurance patrolling". Most of that was in cars. There is a big gap to fill in reassurance patrolling. Much of the time in the police station is spent on preparing prosecution files and paperwork. Like many Members of this House and the other House, I have done my full night shift with the police—nine hours, it was—and I saw the amount of time that was spent on paperwork back in the station after we had picked people up in the middle of the night.
	One way of ensuring that a higher proportion of a police officer's time is spent on the front line is by making greater use of police support staff. That is nothing new. Already, there are 55,000 support staff in the police service, many performing functions previously undertaken by police officers. Greater civilianisation will have the desired effect only if support staff can exercise appropriate police powers. I shall be careful in choosing my language, because some of the officers and personnel envisaged in the Bill have been described in different ways in the media. The Bill enables chief police officers to designate police authority-employed support staff in one or more of four functional categories. They will be employed by the police at the discretion of the chief constable; they are not required or forced to do it. The four functional categories are: community support officers; investigation officers; detention officers; and escort officers. Staff so designated could then exercise limited police powers appropriate to their role. I repeat that they would be employed by the police and would be part of the police service, at the discretion and choice of the chief constable.
	Community support officers will support the work of police officers by providing an enhanced visible policing presence. Their role is focused on deterring and, where appropriate, tackling low-level anti-social behaviour and nuisance. Community support officers will receive full training and be equipped with limited powers, including powers to issue fixed penalty notices and to require a person's name and address in certain clearly defined circumstances. We do not expect community support officers to get themselves into positions of conflict when discharging their functions, but there must be some way of enforcing their powers. Accordingly, the Bill provides that if a person has failed to supply their name and address or has provided false details, the community support officer may detain that person for up to 30 minutes, pending the arrival of a constable. If necessary, the community support officer could exercise reasonable force to effect the detention.
	Part 4 provides for chief officers, in conjunction with the local police authority and other local partners, to establish community safety accreditation schemes. Chief officers may—not will—accredit individual community safety officers employed by local authorities and other agencies.
	Accredited persons would also be able to exercise a range of powers, albeit more limited than those of community support officers. They would be able to address community safety issues in co-operation with the local police. Before any powers were conferred on accredited persons, the chief police officer and employer of that person would need to agree, the employer being, for instance a local authority or perhaps the management of a shopping centre.
	There would be direct linkage with the police and that would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of accredited organisations. It is not policing on the cheap. It is putting a more visible policing reassurance presence on the streets of this country. Many of our police services could make good use of it. They are not required to do so. Some chief constables will not want to use the service, others will. Therefore in the near future we shall have the opportunity of seeing such work in action. People will be uniformed and trained for the functions and powers that they can exercise, which will be extremely limited in comparison with those of a police constable.
	Part 4 also contains provisions for modifying and supplementing police powers. I was reminded by a Member of the other place earlier today, for example, that it confers the power on a police constable, in certain carefully defined circumstances, to obtain a blood sample from a driver without the driver's consent. Normally consent is required. But there have been a number of instances where a person has been killed or seriously injured in an accident, but it has not been possible to take a specimen from the driver because the driver has either been unconscious or so injured as to be unable to give consent. That has meant that there has been no evidence available to support an appropriate drink-driving prosecution and it cannot be right that people can evade being accountable for their actions in that way.
	The Bill will allow a blood sample to be taken from such a driver. Subsequently he would be asked if he consented to its analysis—obviously two samples would be taken. I stress that clinical care of the driver in those circumstances would be paramount. By definition the driver is unconscious or severely injured, whether or not there has been another death.
	That part of the Bill also tackles the issue of alarm and distress caused to local residents as a result of having their roads and open spaces turned into unofficial racetracks. When I read the supplement to the Bill in that regard it reminded me of a quarry site in my former constituency which, every Saturday and Sunday afternoon, became a wonderful track with its ups and downs for motorcycles. It was nice for the cyclists. It kept them off the roads. They were safe. But it was murder and mayhem for people locally and, what is more, nobody could do anything about it. The owner of the land was hundreds of miles away and the police said it was nothing to do with them; they could do nothing. The Bill attempts to deal with such situations by giving the police more effective powers to put an immediate stop to anti-social use of vehicles. It will enable vehicles to be seized quickly by the police and the owner to be charged the appropriate removal and storage fee.
	The Bill contains some technical adjustments to the role of the Ministry of Defence Police, which we debated in a recent Bill, and puts the inspection of MDP officers on a statutory footing. The miscellaneous part of the Bill contains some important measures, and I do not denigrate them in any way by saying they are contained in that section. It removes the anachronistic bar on the recruitment of foreign nationals into the police service. As a consequence there is a change in the oath such people would swear, whether or not they be Commonwealth citizens. It simply replaces the words in the oath of allegiance from,
	"to our Sovereign Lady the Queen",
	with, "the Queen". In those circumstances everyone will swear allegiance to the Queen. It would not be appropriate for foreign nationals, or indeed some members of the Commonwealth, to swear the original oath when Her Majesty is not their head of state.
	The Bill introduces changes in the way the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad recruit staff. It also opens up the post of the director general of NCIS to non-police officers in recognition of its multi-agency status.
	Finally—I regret this but it is a necessary part of police legislation—we intend to bring forward at the appropriate time government amendments to strengthen the effectiveness of the anti-social behaviour orders. That is a vital part of the Bill for Members both of this House and the other place. We want to extend the use of such orders to registered social landlords and the British Transport Police. We want to introduce a system of interim ASBOs so that communities can be protected pending the outcome of a full hearing. We want to enable anti-social behaviour orders to travel with the people on whom they have been served. That will ensure that people cannot escape the consequences of such an order by moving from one area to another. We also propose to explore whether or not, to save time, there is a role for county courts in making orders when they are already dealing with an eviction notice or other civil proceedings against an individual.
	The police reform agenda focuses on giving individuals and communities the police service they expect: a service that is of the highest quality, responsive to their needs and fully accountable. It is not a Bill for centralising the police force. It is not a Bill enabling the Home Secretary to take over the powers of the police, nor to allow the Home Secretary to interfere in the operational structure of the police service. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. Like him I echo a number of sentiments.
	The first, and perhaps the most important one, is an expression of thanks to all existing members of the police force, be they active policemen or civilians working for the police. While as politicians we are wont occasionally to criticise their deeds, the fact is that they have served and no doubt will continue to serve the community well.
	I echo the Minister's desire for a more professional and effective service, although I found that sentiment just slightly at variance with Part 4 of the Bill, which seems to reduce to a considerable degree some aspects of the professionalism of policing. Of course, anything in the Bill which will help to improve data processing throughout all branches of the police force, and communications not merely within the police force but between the police force and other emergency services, is welcome. It is a preposterous situation when the police are called to an accident, have to call for a fire engine, and the fire engine may be only two miles away but the police cannot talk to it to tell the fire officers where they are. Provisions to improve that situation must be good, and if such outcomes arise from the Bill they are wholly to be welcomed.
	But the Bill contains other aspects. The Minister rightly drew attention to the way in which the Bill will be operated. I know and respect the Minister; and I know of, and respect, his right honourable friend in another place. So I do not concern myself too much with the possibility that they will run amok with the powers in the Bill. But the duties of this House are different. We must consider not merely the way in which the Bill will be used by the present incumbent of the office, but also the way in which its powers could be used by someone else who may not be so honourable or straightforward. In that regard we see some problems.
	It is worth noting the background to the Bill. The Government published their White Paper on 5th December last year. On the third page of the document they stated:
	"Comments are invited on the White Paper and should be sent by 21st January, 2002".
	One might have thought that they wished to receive comments and to consider them seriously before taking further action. However, this Bill was published on 25th January—four days after the consultation period closed. I have immense respect for the Civil Service, for those who draft government Bills and for Ministers. But I find it difficult to believe that on that time-scale those comments could have been received, taken note of and, if they contained anything worth while, incorporated into the Bill. The Government, sadly, have further damaged an already tarnished image in regard to their way of handling consultation and their consideration of the views of others.
	We need to face the fact that public aspirations for the police are somewhat ambivalent and to some degree contradictory. On the one hand, communities wish to have community policing—policemen on the beat. To the extent that the Bill does anything to improve that, it must be welcome. It gives people a much enhanced sense of security and well-being; it helps to prevent many lesser crimes—muggings, vandalism and so on; and it increases the number of arrests. We all feel better when we see a policeman on the street.
	On the other hand, we also expect the police to deal with more serious crimes. In a sense, there is a war between the criminals and normal, honest society, for which we all pay. It is immensely expensive. For instance, the global value of containers and their contents stolen each year is greater than the cost of the total value of the damage done on 11th September. That relates only to stolen containers. The cost of heroin to this country is about £4 billion per annum. That money financed very nicely a long criminal chain all the way back to Afghanistan and represented a considerable proportion of government income in that country.
	We need to recognise that the police have an immensely difficult task and that those two aspects of their work are, to some degree, in conflict with each other.
	Let us consider the average basic police command unit, on which the Audit Commission has carried out one of its statistical operations. I do not suppose that the basic command unit exists, just as the average family with 2.3 children does not exist. On the basis of a population of 160,000 people in an area with 1,400 miles of pavement, if there are 160 policemen to cover the area for 24 hours a day, after all the duties they have to undertake—dealing with crime, civic duties, arrests, station formalities and all the other matters which have to be taken proper care of—there will be about 10 men left to work on the beat on those 1,400 miles of pavement. I pity and respect the men on the beat who bear that burden and their commanders who have to send them out into the community in that way. That is the context which lies behind the Bill. We have to hope that it will improve the situation.
	When I look at Part 1 of the Bill, I think back over the constitutional arrangements in the police force that I grew up with when I was in local government. The old tripartite arrangements were clearly understood by everyone. All police authorities were responsible to the Home Secretary, who looked after them in many ways. As the representative of government, he provided most of the money to the force. We need to recognise that. I have always believed strongly that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
	Within that framework, each police authority was properly the representative of the community police. That is a very important function. It is the key which makes British policing acceptable. It saves us from some of the problems experienced by other countries with much more national police forces, which can lead to occasional outbreaks of tension of the worst kind. The local community, of course, supplied the balance of the funding, and that was critical.
	The third person in the tripartite arrangement was the chief constable, who had operational and administrative control. All of those parts have worked well together and, with the help of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, have developed and changed very well with the times.
	There was some erosion of that position under the terms of the 1996 Act, which gave the Secretary of State, after consultation with police authorities and chief constables, power to set objectives; power to set performance targets; power to issue codes of practice for the discharge of functions by police authorities; power to require inspections of specific actions by a police authority in the light of an adverse report; power to direct minimum budget; power to require dismissal of chief constables; power to require reports and statistics. One might think that that was a fairly long list by way of recompense for paying the piper. It began a trend towards a greater central possibility.
	That list is fairly comprehensive, and one could argue that the Home Office no longer feels any need to pay regard to the Government's lip-service to devolution because the Bill adds to the list of interventions—not greatly, but in critical ways. It adds to the Secretary of State's power to prepare a national plan and to require all local plans to conform with it.
	As far as I can see, there is no requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult anyone in the preparation of that plan. It is inconceivable to me that the Home Secretary would attempt such an action on his own. However, it would have been as well to recognise that there are wider interests involved than a Whitehall office. I should have preferred to see some kind of consultation which recognised the old arrangements in the preparation of that plan.
	The Home Secretary will have power to prepare codes of practice with chief officers, after consultation with the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which, as the Minister has just explained, is a new body established under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, but which is not yet in being. We hope—hope is the only word that we can use—that that body will be effective, that it will work well and that it will do a great deal to improve standards in the police force, but we do not know. It seems odd not to involve HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which is closely linked with the Home Office and the Home Secretary and, in a different way, with the local police authorities and chief constables.
	The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to require an inspection of a part of the force and, if a report is adverse, he can direct the authority on specific action. The Home Secretary can even bypass the police authority and direct the chief constable on a plan of action, thereby breaking the conventional lines of communication. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there will be direct exclusion from operational interference. It is important that that exclusion is maintained. However, if the plans are too detailed and lead to inconsistency, these additional powers could damage policing in certain areas.
	Micro-managing from the centre—and the idea that Whitehall knows best—does not work. One need only consider matters such as education, health and transport to see that the one-size-fits-all approach that a national plan produces does not recognise the reality of what happens on the ground. Can one really compare the Metropolitan Police or Manchester police with forces in Cumbria or in Devon and Cornwall, or perhaps in the smallest authority, Warwickshire? At the basic police command unit level, can one equate Westminster with Merton, or, in my own authority, a BCU in south Essex with a BCU in north Essex, where manning and equipment levels and procedures are different? A national plan cannot take that into account.
	Part 4 of the Bill gives certain police powers to individuals who are otherwise civilians. Aspects of that make good sense. No one could object to a chief constable appointing civilian employees as investigation officers, detention officers or escort officers. That is straightforward and, to the extent that it will relieve constables who have administrative duties, it is excellent. But granting police powers to civilians leads us into a more difficult area. There are one or two worrying aspects to these provisions. I refer to Clause 33(5), which states:
	"A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of the applicable Part of Schedule 4 that are to apply to the designated person".
	Clause 33(6)(b) states that a person,
	"shall be so authorised or required subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his designation".
	That means that different people can have different powers. For example, community support officers in the same police force can operate different powers in different parts of an authority or they can act side by side. The public will never understand that. Why have the Government introduced such complexity to their proposals? Police on the beat who have to face the public do the most difficult job in the police force. Detection, criminal investigation, and so on, are highly important, but making snap judgments about human behaviour and how to handle it is the critical job that the police have to do. Importantly, that job gives the police their reputation in the eyes of the public.
	Clause 35 deals with community safety accreditation schemes. Then there is an additional complication, apart from the variability to which I referred. Clause 36(5) states:
	"For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of . . . employees of a police authority, or . . . employees of a person with whom a chief officer of police has entered into any arrangements for the purposes of a community safety accreditation scheme, conduct by such an employee . . . shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by . . . that employer . . . and, in the case of a tort, that authority or employer shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly".
	In other words, someone who is out on the street with police powers will be put into the difficult position whereby he is not responsible to the police for his actions when he is acting in a police capacity. He will be responsible to his original employer, which puts the original employer in a wholly invidious position.
	There is perhaps much in the Bill that will be good, but there are risks in it that it needs to be examined critically and to be limited. There are aspects that will need to be changed considerably. Much heavy work is before us. However, I am sure that at the end of the process, the Bill will leave the House in a better state than when it arrived.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have been a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority on and off since 1993, and for the past three years, I have been vice chairman and deputy chairman thereof. I am also a member of the Association of Police Authorities. I was a member of that organisation when we were told by the then Home Secretary to lose 200 police officers and was still a member when we were told by another Home Secretary to recruit an extra 200 officers. It is difficult to retain the people who are recruited.
	I remember that in 1993 police pensions were a problem. They still are—only more so. The Home Secretary who is keen to interfere in our affairs has done nothing about that problem. We have brought the boundaries of our area into line with local authority boundaries, and we have done much to improve our methods of consultation and our recruitment of ethnic minorities. But do not let us believe that we are as out of touch with what people want as I sometimes believe our Home Office officials and Ministers are. For example, we know that people want the protection of speed cameras, because we are told at every town and parish meeting about speeding vehicles, yet the Home Office makes it ever more difficult for us by raising the criteria, not by upholding what we do.
	The Bill seeks to centralise control in the hands of the Home Secretary and to allow him to set objectives and plans and to remove senior officers from their posts. What does the Home Office think is the point of having police authorities with good quality membership, strengthened by the independent members, of whom the Home Secretary approves?
	The authority's annual policing plan—a requirement of the Police Act 1996—together with the Home Secretary's overarching objectives, breaks down into four priorities. Those drive our efforts. We had previously tried to have seven priorities, but we decided that four was as many as rank and file police officers could readily absorb. To have more tends to lead to more bureaucracy.
	Under the Local Government Act 1999, we have a five-year rolling programme to review all our activities under the best value performance plan, so that services are provided efficiently, effectively and to a good standard. That work is overseen by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the district auditor. Central government require us to make a 2 per cent year-on-year saving. Our meagre central government grant is dependent on our achieving that. This year we are drawing on our reserves to stay within the Government's suggested council tax limit. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 we are required to furnish plans, in conjunction with local authorities and other agencies, to reduce crime and disorder in our area. If your Lordships think that I am beginning to give the impression that we already have enough directives from above, which we are trying sincerely to fulfil, you are correct, yet we face even more centralisation and directives.
	This week I had breakfast with two recently retired head teachers who say that they left the profession because head teachers no longer have time to teach due to administrative overload. The number of applications for such jobs declined. One local school has advertised three times for a head teacher. People want to go into teaching in order to teach, not to be administrators. Similarly, most police men and women want to police, not to sit in offices filling out forms.
	Your Lordships will have gathered that we think that the proposals to put more power in the hands of the Home Secretary are wrong. He has enough authority now. The whole tripartite structure of the policing part of our constitution depends on each party playing its part.
	Along with Magna Carta, policing by consent is one of the touchstones of our unwritten constitution. It is a bulwark against a police state. Policing by consent has many facets. One aspect, which we proudly describe as unique, is the tripartite system of police governance. As your Lordships know, control of the police is shared between the Home Secretary, the local police authority and the chief constable. It is a system of carefully constructed checks and balances that ensures that policing is not subject to partisan political control. The system gives local people a substantive voice in how they are policed and means that policing is tailored to local needs and expectations. It is a credit to this House that the arrangements put in place in 1993 have worked extraordinarily well. If the Bill seeks to reorder the current balance within the tripartite relationship, we should satisfy ourselves that there is strong justification for doing so.
	In our view, the Bill contains proposals that would radically shift the balance away from local people and local accountability towards greater central direction and control by the Home Secretary. Many saw the 1994 Act as a centralising measure. The Bill goes considerably further, but does so in a more opaque way. In our view it is a retrograde step, taking us away from a policing service that should seek to be more sensitive to the views of local communities.
	Those who have read the Explanatory Notes will have found no overt statement that the legislation would fundamentally alter the existing balance of the tripartite relationship, but a closer look at what is involved shows that that is what it will mean in practice. The cumulative effect of the Bill will be to transfer power away from local communities and their police authorities to the Home Secretary at the centre. In my view, it will unbalance the tripartite relationship.
	First, there are proposals for a national policing plan. At first sight, that is a welcome means of pulling together coherently the Government's priorities for and expectations of the police service. However, as the Bill is drafted the national plan could easily become a vehicle for national diktat on policing, whether under this Home Secretary—who may have good motives—or a future one.
	Then there is to be a new duty on police authorities to submit their three-year strategies to the Home Secretary. Again, it seems eminently sensible to provide for three-year local policing strategies—no major business could be managed without a medium-term strategy—but why should the Home Secretary need to call in such a plan? Does he not trust local police authorities? If not, why not? Where is the evidence to support that contention?
	There are to be new powers for the Home Secretary to decide what equipment and operational practices the police should deploy. Perhaps the Home Secretary should be the ultimate arbiter on such overarching issues as Airwave, but before making such decisions, should he not have to consult the tripartite partners—the police authorities and the chief constables—as well as ACPO and the APA? Should not the Bill require that? Are the civil servants in the Home Office better judges of what works than those on the ground?
	There are to be powers for the Home Secretary to direct chief constables. Your Lordships will know that the Home Secretary recently set up a Police Standards Unit, with a remit to intervene in so-called failing forces or basic command units, although I think that the Minister told us that that would not happen. If things go wrong, steps must be taken to put them right, but we do not want hit squads from Queen Anne's Gate coming to tell us what to do. Experience elsewhere in local authority areas suggests that they are not very successful.
	No one would question that some communities are not receiving the policing services that they deserve. If we value the tripartite system, should not remedial action be taken in conjunction and co-operation with the police authority, whose job is to monitor and manage local police performance? Should the Home Secretary bypass those people and intervene directly in the chief constable's affairs? How does that impact on the long-established doctrine of operational independence?
	There are to be new powers for the Home Secretary to suspend a chief constable. The Minister said that they would be used only exceptionally, but the power is there and can be used, if not by this Home Secretary then by a future one. No Home Secretary is in a position to second-guess the judgment of the local people who sit on police authorities about whether the communities retain the confidence of the chief constable. Peremptory action might make a bad situation worse.
	Evidence from many studies of local government suggests that self-improvement aided by peers is far more effective than external intervention. The Government ought to support the APA's improvement programme for police authorities, which seeks to generate self-improvement at local level.
	We shall wish to explore all those issues in considerable depth in Committee. At present we feel that the measures in Part 1 do not deserve support. We are not heartened by the proposals in the consultative paper, which the Government have recently published on the British Transport Police, to note that the Home Secretary proposes to appoint the independent members of the proposed police authority, the chairman and the vice-chairman and to set the objectives for the authority. We believe that the present arrangements for appointing members and officers of police authorities are satisfactory and can see no need for change.
	There are other radical proposals in this Bill which will equally be the focus of your Lordships' attention. Mention was made of policing on the cheap, two tier policing and all sorts of things. I doubt whether I am alone in finding it difficult to translate the stark clause in the Bill into practical terms. But there are two different limbs to the operation. First, there is the concept of giving police powers to support staff under the direction and control of the chief constable, which is favoured in London by the Metropolitan Police and may be applicable there.
	I am sure that we all welcome measures to relieve police officers of routine paperwork and other administrative tasks and get them back on the streets. But I confess to being dismayed at the prospect of non-police staff being given powers, for example, to undertake intimate searches. Again, we shall want to pursue that at the Committee stage.
	The second limb is the Government's response to the cry for more "bobbies on the beat". The Government's solution set out in Part 4 of the Bill for non-police community support officers and accredited staff to exercise certain police powers, raises fundamental questions which go to the heart of our policing system.
	The proposals will allow both police support staff and non-police staff, including employees of private security firms, exercising considerable police powers over the community. Among other things, they will have the power to detain individuals for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable, and in the case of CSOs, some stop-and-search powers.
	I shall not go into detail about all our concerns here: that is for the Committee stage. But the question I ask the Government is this: what evidence do they have that this is what the communities want? As the Bill is currently drafted, we will never know. Local people or indeed local police authorities will have no say in the matter. The Bill makes it a simple deployment decision for the chief constable. Is that right? Should such a fundamental change be allowed to go to the heart of our policing?
	Unless there is community support, how will these community support officers or accredited staff use their powers effectively? Does it not bring us back to the fundamental issues of policing by consent?
	I suggest that the legislation should provide for local communities to agree to non-police officers exercising these powers over them and for police authorities to consult local communities about such changes and determine the way forward in the light of their views. Should not the Bill require such a critical issue to be agreed by a police authority as the community's representatives? In addition, community support officers now undertake many duties connected with local authorities, and if any of them are to come under police direction, these other duties will have to be overtaken.
	These proposals also raise all kinds of other questions which will need to be explored in depth. I shall signal a few of them now. How do we recruit people if we pay them a good deal less than police officers? How do we pay for them beyond the short-term funding which is now agreed for community wardens? This is a significant problem.
	How can we be satisfied about their training; that they exercise their powers in a fair way among ethnic minorities? What equipment will they carry? How is their health and safety to be covered? Will they be accountable for their actions? Will they be subject to an equally rigorous complaints and disciplinary procedure as police officers and crucially—I make no apology for returning to this matter—how are they going to be funded because most of the funding is only for three years? At the end of it, local authorities and, I presume police authorities, will have to pay for them.
	I reiterate my disappointment that the subject of pensions is not mentioned because that is very important. At the moment police authorities are spending a great proportion of their budget on pensions and a quarter of their budget will go on them by 2013. Some of them have already reached that figure. The Government have been promising since time immemorial to resolve this issue. Reports have been in the pipeline for years, but they have never been delivered.
	We recognise that there are no easy solutions and that any new approach will involve significant costs. But if the Government do not take steps urgently, police authorities and local communities will face, to put it bluntly, a policing crisis.
	Accountability to local people for the police services which they receive is the responsibility of police authorities. Day in and day out, it is the local police authority members who are there on the ground to consult local people, listen and respond to their grievances, identify their policing needs and expectations and ensure that the chief constable and the force delivers that agenda within resource constraints. That is not something that Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall can do.
	That is why there has to be a partnership approach and why neither Parliament nor Ministers should seek to exercise detailed control over police from the centre. Yes, Parliament and Ministers should set the strategic direction and help to disseminate good practice. If the disturbances last summer, for example, have taught us anything, it has been to reinforce the crucial importance of policing which is sensitive to local needs.
	We recognise and support the Government's desire to ensure that our police service is for the 21st century. We need modern, flexible policing services which value their staff and make the best use of available technology and good practice in fighting crime. But the policing outcomes that we all wish to see can be achieved only if all the tripartite partners work together in true partnership without domination or control by one partner over the others.
	All this leaves out of account the future of the Special Constabulary. We know that the number of specials is falling. We know that that is partly because of the new rules on health and safety and training, but we suspect it is because changes in the nature of society mean that volunteering for that role is no longer attractive. We believe that special constables should be paid and be available on a regular basis to assist particularly at times of peak demand. I say to the Minister, take no notice of what the present specials think. It is new people we want to join and it is they we should ask.
	With the present structure of inspections I believe that we have sufficient direction and that police authorities are well structured to take action against chief officers. At present we judge the performance of BCU commanders. For example, we put good people into Slough although we know that it is our toughest area with the highest number of probationer constables. Would we do so if we thought it was a target area for the Home Secretary?
	We see no need for codes of practice; neither do we need the direction of a report to show us we are efficient. I would go so far as to say that prompt action is taken if we believe that we are on the slide. There is no need to give direction about operational procedures and practices. Both ACPO officers and police authorities meet regularly and good procedures become evident and are adopted and will probably be taught by central police training, although that may vary from one place to another as to what might be appropriate.
	Finally, we welcome the emergence of the independent police complaints commission and the provision of independent lay visitors to police stations. We hope that traffic wardens will have properly defined and substantially increased duties.

Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a life member of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Many members of the police service past and present have argued for reform and this Bill provides some of the long overdue building blocks in this change process. I believe that the Bill is to be broadly welcomed, but it also raises concerns which I hope will be addressed in your Lordships' House and another place. I shall raise some of these anxieties in a moment.
	I believe that the most important provision in the Bill is the proposed creation of the independent police complaints commission. Many of us have campaigned for such a body for more than a decade. Police officers can intervene in people's lives in a way that alters those lives for ever—for good or for evil. It is vital that the investigation process against police officers enjoys maximum public support and confidence. Nothing short of a completely independent complaints commission will assuage public concern about the integrity and thoroughness of the complaints process.
	It is interesting that the proposed commission will also provide better protection for serving police officers themselves, who sometimes become the victims of malicious complaints or even of tactical complaints by career criminals who can exploit the current arrangements. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the creation of the independent complaints commission.
	The noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Bradshaw, have mentioned the tripartite structure for the governance of policing. That structure has not only stood the test of time; it has provided the checks and balances that underpin our policing system. Local police authorities, chief constables and the Secretary of State have been very effective partners in policing. I agree that the cumulative impact of the clauses in the Bill which give the Secretary of State new powers to direct and control policing will dramatically alter that balance of power in favour of the Secretary of State. Although that may be considered necessary to kick-start some of the proposed reforms, there may well be an unwelcome price to pay if chief constables and police authorities feel marginalised and local needs, local circumstances and the voice of local communities are no longer relevant or heard. I hope that as the Bill is debated in your Lordships' House and in another place those fundamental issues will be aired and reviewed, as today's debate has indicated they will be.
	We do not have a national police force. The Bill, while necessarily seeking to ensure an overall policing plan and strategy and the spread of best practice, should also recognise and celebrate local needs and variations. Her Majesty's Government explained recently in your Lordships' House, in relation to reform of the health service, that they were not seeking to run an organisation, but rather seeking to oversee a values-driven devolved system. Surely similar principles should apply to police reform.
	I come now to community support officers and community safety accreditation schemes. Other noble Lords have already mentioned the Bill's enabling provisions to allow chief officers of police to employ or designate suitably skilled and trained civilians as community support officers and to perform other specified functions. I think that those proposals should be given a fair chance and not dismissed out of hand. The key issue is that the relevant clauses are enabling. No chief officer or police authority will be required to make such deployments or designations.
	I believe that some forces—particularly my old force, the Met—will utilise the provisions, if they are enacted, with enthusiasm and relish in dealing with particular problems and particular needs. I am sure that, with the current, post-11th September stretch of resources and the need for additional security patrols and premises guarding, the Met will seek to use the new provisions. Similarly, they will wish to use the provisions to establish an important new entry point for colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds who currently cannot manage to make the leap into the police service itself, but who could well use the new community support roles as a bridging mechanism to policing.
	Other forces will rightly be more cautious. Rural communities are more likely to relish, for example, the appointment of 50 additional rural bobbies, with all their skills, powers and influence on community life, rather than 80 or 100 community support officers, accredited wardens or guards. Seen as an innovative extension of the police family, the flexibility offered by the provisions is to be welcomed. If, however, the provisions are used to enable a cheaper substitute for traditional policing, they will do immense harm to the reservoir of good will which, although strained, still exists between the police and the public. If the only significant contact between the public and policing is in street encounters with under-trained community support officers, over time, confidence in the police service will be seriously eroded.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, we already have a well-established special constabulary of unpaid volunteers. We should revisit the scheme to see whether it can be extended by new initiatives and payments to play a greater role in the extended police family.
	I think that the Bill enhances police reform in the round and plays an important part in the overall reform programme. The police service wants reform to succeed. Communities desperately need police reforms to succeed. As the Bill passes through your Lordships' House and another place, I hope that it will be influenced by a number of key principles. First, we have not chosen to have, nor have we evolved, a national police force. The Bill's provisions move us closer to a national police force, which may or may not be a good thing. However, in changing the balance of power between the Secretary of State, police authorities and chief constables, we must not lose the potential for good and for innovation that comes from variety and from the strongest possible links between local communities and local police.
	Secondly, in extending the police family and in establishing these challenging new performance targets, there must be a real and tangible link between the strategies set for the police service and the resources made available to it to carry out these reforms. Of course there must be emphasis on value for money, raising standards to the level of the best and constantly demanding greater efficiency. However, experience elsewhere has shown that resourcing is vital to reform.
	The improvements in New York are often cited as a model to be followed here, and I agree. The improvements in crime reduction, public safety and public confidence in New York are real and startling, and they are attributed to strong political and police leadership, tough performance standards and review, and, importantly, a dramatic increase in resources. Metropolitan Police numbers peaked in about 1991–92 at just under 29,000 police officers. As of today, there are about 26,450 police officers for London. At one stage, the New York Police Department manning level dropped to about 25,000 police officers, for a city with approximately the same population size as London's. However, under a new mayor and a new commissioner and with new resources, New York police numbers increased to 42,000. As I said, as of today, there are 26,450 police officers in London, but 42,000 in New York. Resources will make a difference.
	Thirdly, the police service, which seeks to embrace reform, encourages similar reform in other spheres that can impact on the criminal justice system, crime prevention and public confidence. The Auld report has stimulated overdue discussion about the courts system and reform. Police are not the only stakeholders in criminal justice, crime prevention and community safety who are in need of reform. Joined-up government should surely lead to joined-up reform.
	We have the opportunity for comprehensive reform of policing. This important Bill lays the foundation for much of that reform. I hope that, in passing through your Lordships' House and another place, the Bill will be improved to take account of the concerns and expectations that have been expressed today.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and as a member of the executive of the Association of Police Authorities. I should also say, to reassure my colleagues on those bodies, that I do not necessarily reflect the detailed policies of those respective organisations.
	I believe that there is consensus in what has been said in your Lordships' House on the need for reform and the need to address some of the serious issues that currently face the police service in tackling crime. There is clearly agreement on the importance of the need to promote high standards and to encourage good practice. Therefore, the Government's proposals and arrangements for a new police standards unit, working no doubt in close collaboration with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, are clearly welcome.
	The Bill is an important part of that reform process. It is an important part of demonstrating that we want to see policing by consent in this country. The proposals in the Bill should constitute an important part of building public support and reassurance as regards the vital work that the police service does.
	In that context I was extremely interested to hear the description of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of an old-style tripartite arrangement. I was worried that his defence of police authorities might be a trifle lacklustre but I am sure that he will make up for that in the course of the weeks to follow. The tripartite system has great importance and its purpose should not be forgotten. As I understand it—I am a relative newcomer to this field—the tripartite system comprises having operational decision-making resting with the chief constable; local accountability and local direction resting with the police authority; and national accountability and overall standards resting with the Home Secretary. That is a system of balance which blends the local, the national and the operational requirements.
	In that context I believe that it is entirely logical to have a national policing plan. There is certainly nothing sinister in that. Indeed, I suspect that it would constitute an enormous convenience to many people to be able to codify the existing multiplicity of guidance and guidelines that emanate from the Home Office. It is also not at all sinister—indeed, it is entirely helpful—that it should be informed by local three-year plans. That is certainly not the sinister sign of central control that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested. I should be far more concerned if the national policing plan were drawn up in the absence of knowledge of the three-year policing plans of local police authorities. What is more, it is proposed that the national policing plan be brought before Parliament, which gives a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. Again, that is something that I am sure your Lordships will welcome. However, in the spirit of the tripartite principle it is no doubt an omission which will be rectified in the amendments that my noble friend the Minister indicated he would bring forward on behalf of the Home Office. It will be made clear that the national policing plan will be subject to consultation with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers. As I say, I am sure that that is a minor omission which will be rectified at a later stage. Similarly, I am sure that it will be possible to state on the face of the Bill that there is consultation with APA and with ACPO on the codes of practice suggested in the Bill.
	The Bill suggests that the national policing plan should be brought forward before the start of each financial year. Perhaps when my noble friend the Minister replies to the debate he will clarify how long before the start of the financial year he considers sufficient. The national policing plan should feed into local policing plans and into budget making. That clearly requires that the national objectives that the Home Office may wish to set are known at an early stage.
	I wish to say a few words about Clause 5 on directions to chief officers. That measure strengthens the Home Secretary's role, although it is not clear to me in the discussions that I have heard so far why that could not be exercised through the police authority mechanism. That would, of course, preserve the tripartite structure and would ensure local accountability. Certainly, there is a danger—again, my noble friend may be able to clarify how that danger can be avoided—of blurring responsibility lines where directions from the Home Office appear to be set against police authority priorities. Certainly, there should be consultation with the local police authority on the issuing of any directions. I should hope that action plans from chief officers could be delivered to the Home Office via police authorities following their consideration by the police authority concerned.
	Clause 7 enables the Home Secretary to make regulations on operational practices and procedures. I have no problem with that. It may be necessary to promote good practice and certainly would involve the Home Office and the national government in the preparation, on a tripartite principle, of the existing guidelines which are produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers. But if the tripartite principle is to be strengthened by the Home Office being involved in that process, I hope that it could also be strengthened as far as the third leg of the stool is concerned by requiring the involvement of police authorities in the process. Regulations, operational practices and procedures would be issued following meaningful consultation with APA and with ACPO. I believe that that is in the spirit of what is intended. No doubt my noble friend will clarify that that will be the case.
	I turn briefly to Part 2 of the Bill, complaints. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, indicated, there has been enormous dissatisfaction with the existing complaints arrangements which are not seen as independent by most of those who make complaints. They are seen as the police investigating themselves. What is more, the processes are painfully slow and they are certainly completely opaque to the complainant and, indeed, to most other people. Therefore, the proposals in Part 2 are to be welcomed. They are an enormous improvement on the current arrangements. The new IPCC will have to work hard to demonstrate that it is indeed properly independent, but the mechanics are there to enable it to be so. The IPCC must have a clear duty to act speedily but thoroughly and, of course, it must keep complainants fully informed.
	The only omission that I can see is what appears to be an exclusion of complaints about the direction and control of a force. I do not see why that cannot be included within the terms of reference of the IPCC. Certainly, however, those proposals will be widely welcomed and I believe that many people will look forward to their implementation and will work to ensure that they are a strong and effective arrangement for improving public confidence in the police service.
	I turn to the proposals in Clause 33 for community support officers. I strongly support the principle that is contained in those proposals. I certainly believe—again I say this in the spirit of the tripartite arrangements that we all support—that chief officers should prepare a plan in this regard which should be agreed by the local police authority. That measure should be stated on the face of the Bill before individuals are designated as community support officers. I am also pleased that the Bill recognises that there are different needs in different areas. That is not a solution that will necessarily find favour everywhere in the country. As chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I have to say that in London it is certainly seen as an important development in the context of substantially increasing police numbers. After a decade in which, year on year, police numbers in London have declined, in the current year there is a net increase of over 1,000 police officers in the London area. On the basis of the budget that is likely to be approved in the next few weeks, we shall see an increase of between 1,000 and 1,500 officers in the course of the coming year. That will bring police numbers in London to around 28,000—close to the maximum that has ever been achieved to which the noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred.
	It is important that those proposals are seen in the context of increasing police numbers rather than decreasing police numbers. Community support officers should be concerned explicitly with adding value to what is being done by the police service locally. They are certainly not substitutes for police officers.
	As to the escalating problem of street crime in virtually every London borough, we hear from the public that there is a need for reassurance but also for more to be done about its perpetrators. Visible patrols—perhaps by community support officers—are vital to providing reassurance and may deter street crime. However, such patrols might not be the solution or make the best use of fully trained police officers in achieving a better rate of judicial disposal.
	There is a balance to be struck between using community support officers to improve reassurance and provide the eyes and ears of the Metropolitan Police and using fully trained officers in intelligence-led, specialised and targeted operations that focus on likely perpetrators—the sort of activities undertaken in various parts of London in Operation Strongbox. The new proposals will enormously add value to policing and tackling community safety in London.
	The new category of officer will provide an alternative route into the police service for many. At present, 40 per cent of special constables recruited for the metropolitan area are from black and ethnic minority communities. The figure for those entering the Metropolitan Police is only 11 per cent. It is possible, therefore, that using such intermediate steps might attract more recruits from black and ethnic minority communities, which is an important priority in London. The issue is reassurance with consent, which is why the proposals are so important.
	Similarly, the provisions for community safety accreditation in Clause 34 recognise the burgeoning number of schemes. I spend time visiting London boroughs, to talk with local authorities, police commanders and partnerships. Many boroughs have already implemented local schemes for neighbourhood wardens, estate wardens, estate officers, parks officers, enforcement officers and so on. The accreditation proposals can be used as part of the wider police family as the eyes and ears of the police service—and to impose quality standards to offer the public reassurance about the quality of work that is done.
	Clause 34(3) requires that police authorities be consulted on proposals to introduce an accreditation. No doubt "consult" should have read "approve" but at least that provision exists. Perhaps it could be replicated in Clause 33.
	I welcome the extension in Clause 60 regarding nationality—an issue raised at many of the meetings that I have attended throughout London in respect of recruitment and retention problems in the past. Of course applicants must meet rigorous standards but they should not be barred because of their nationality.
	If I may be permitted to nit-pick an excellent Bill, Clause 68 on crime and disorder reduction partnerships contains a sensible proposal to bring them together with drug action teams. There is a plethora of partnerships, so simplifying the structure must make sense—but I question whether the Bill's solution of having primary care trusts serve as the responsible authorities is a sensible way forward. Under the previous arrangements, the local police commander and local authority chief executive had joint responsibility for producing crime and disorder reduction plans for the area. That enabled the existing partnership to be built on, and made it happen.
	Resting responsibility for such plans on two individuals can be difficult enough, so I wonder whether it is sensible to place that responsibility on three individuals. Perhaps some new status that recognises the importance of health, particularly in the context of drug and alcohol abuse, could be incorporated into the Bill. At the same time, perhaps it might be possible to remedy the failure of earlier legislation to recognise the important role of police authorities. In my visits to London boroughs, I have seen how valuable it would be for a police authority to play a role in overseeing quality control of crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Perhaps that can be remedied when we come to consider Clause 68, as we need to do.
	The Bill is an excellent part of the police reform programme and has many excellent aspects. I have cited the issues relating to complaints, community safety and accreditation. Building on the tripartite principle, as is clearly the Bill's intention, is the way forward for effective policing.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the White Paper Policing a New Century boasts that crime is falling. Until the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned street crime in London, I was beginning to think that there was a real risk that this debate would proceed, if not in a mood of complacency, then at least without anyone talking about what is really going on in the streets of our cities.
	The uncomfortable truth is that the crime that concerns and frightens people most is growing at an appalling rate. In the past three years, assaults and muggings in London have risen by no less than 28 per cent. People in London are now six times more likely to be assaulted or robbed than are residents of New York. Percentages do not bring out the true horror. One can get that day after day by reading of the muggings, knifings and carjackings that go on in this, our capital city. It is shaming and disgraceful.
	The White Paper states that fear of crime is high. It would be astonishing if it were not. Fear of crime—and, common sense tells us, some crime actually committed—is increasing not least because of what The Times referred to the other day as the retreat of the police from the streets; a retreat that has deprived citizens, frightened of what is going on in their neighbourhoods, of the comfort and deterrent effect of a police presence.
	The question we must address is why that retreat from the streets has taken place. Are the new bureaucratic burdens that have been placed on the police to blame—the form-filling that accompanies every arrest and the new tasks that the police have been given? Yes, up to a point, I say; but is it not also clear that another factor has been the view of many senior officers that if patrolling is not actually a bit of a waste of time, there are better ways of using scarce manpower that are also less demanding and more popular with the rank and file?
	The other day, The Times reported Sir David Phillips, Chief Constable of Kent and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, as criticising calls for more visible police patrolling. He expressed the view that there is no prospect of the police ever having enough manpower to do enough patrolling to satisfy public expectations. That may be right or wrong, but Sir David's words certainly seem to justify the claim by, among others, the Police Federation that not just a shortage of police officers but the lack of priority given to beat patrols by chief constables has led to the present state of affairs. The research into the diaries of police officers to which the Minister referred showed that the foot patrol is a rarity. That is the truth of it; and I believe—today I speak very much as a layman—that the public are suffering as a result.
	We are told that there are considerable discrepancies in performance between different forces, which is why the Home Secretary is determined to take steps to ensure that policing everywhere is brought up to the standards of the best. I should like to know whether the discrepancies in performance between different forces, about which we have heard, include a discrepancy in the amount of actual patrolling that takes place. If so, the addressing of those discrepancies, and the redeployment of existing police resources, may be thought more of a priority than the recruitment of community support officers. I should like to be assured that all forces now recognise that although every street cannot be patrolled, officers on the beat do provide reassurance to the public and are an important part of policing; and that incident response, sometimes delayed for an absurd time and rarely leading to an arrest, is no substitute for the foot patrol.
	I should like to say a few words about community support officers. Although I can see great merit in the proposal that police authority employees may be designated as investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers—all that is excellent—the idea of having quasi police officers with only limited police powers patrolling the streets has, to my mind, few attractions. I gather that some in the Metropolitan Police are happy to go along with the idea because they see it as a way of heading off pressure from certain London boroughs, worried about the lack of police presence on the streets, to set up their own auxiliary forces.
	But if we go in for this two-tier policing, have we not every reason to fear that in a few years' time the Treasury will be insisting that forces should save money by steadily altering the balance between police officers and auxiliaries, recruiting fewer police officers who are so costly to train and more community support officers who cost so much less? That is a real fear. If it is realised, the end result will be a steady decline in quality, a fall in both standards and performance, and less—not more—public protection.
	Then there is the very important point made by Mr Lawrence Roach, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in his letter to The Times last Wednesday—a letter that I commend to all noble Lords who have not already read it. It is all very well talking of police support staff going out on patrol to reassure the public, ready to deal with anti-social behaviour and minor disorder, but is not peacekeeping indivisible? Does it really make sense to give a patrolling officer power to deal with a lout who drops litter, but leave him impotent to deal with the same lout when, moments later, he seriously assaults a passer-by? It is very difficult to see the sense of that proposal. Is it really sensible to require such an officer to check the motorist who has improperly parked his car but studiously to ignore the knife fight or carjacking going on at his elbow?
	Where are the people who will carry out such challenging tasks to come from? I suppose that there may be people who are prepared to do, at very much less than a policeman's salary, the pretty unpleasant job about which we are talking. But if such people exist, are they likely to be of the standard that the public are entitled to expect? Is the Home Office thinking of those now employed as traffic wardens? If so, I believe that we are entitled to be worried.
	Before going down this road, surely the Home Secretary should try a far more obvious way of meeting the need that he has identified. He should do everything possible, including the use of substantial financial incentives, to expand the Special Constabulary. Some speakers have already mentioned the Specials in today's debate, and have commended their role. If there is a need for more support for the police to ensure greater police visibility on the streets, surely the Specials are the obvious people to carry out that function. After all, the Specials have been on the scene for years. They are well accepted; they have the confidence of the public; and, above all, they have full police powers. The White Paper, to which I referred earlier, tells us that the number of Specials has seriously declined in recent years from a peak of 20,573 in December 1993 to 12,738 in March 2001.
	We are told that among the reasons given for that decline is the feeling among Specials that they are under-valued and are not given worthwhile and interesting duties. But those are all matters that can be put right. Strengthening the Specials seems to me to be so much easier for the police to accept than what is proposed. The Specials are not seen as a threat to their standing, as the gateway to two-tier policing.
	I have concentrated on community support officers, but that is not because I believe them to be the most important part of the Home Secretary's proposals. Of course they are not; and there is much to digest in a very comprehensive package. Some people are worried that, through the new powers sought in Part 1, the Home Secretary is at risk of upsetting the present delicate constitutional framework—the partnership between chief officers, police authorities and government—and that, in the words of the Association of Police Authorities, the voice of local communities will be sidelined. During the progress of the Bill through this House, we must look very closely at those powers to ensure than they are not wider than necessary.
	The Association of Police Authorities sees the sense of annual, national policing plan, but it wants to be consulted. It seems to me that here, and in many other areas, a commitment to consultation with the police authorities would meet most of the association's concerns. But we shall surely have to consider with great care the powers that the Home Secretary seeks to intervene if a force is not efficient or effective, as well as the proposals with regard to the suspension and removal of senior officers.
	However, I am sure that the Bill is on the right lines where it makes it possible for forces not only to recruit expert investigating officers to deal with financial and information-technology crime but also to equip those people with all the necessary powers to enable them to carry out their job effectively.
	The police undertake a very difficult job for us. We all owe them an enormous debt. They often do not receive the public support that they deserve. When this Bill has completed its passage through this House, I hope that the police—all ranks—will see it as designed not to hinder them in their work but to help them. That is what they deserve from us.

Ofsted Annual Report

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the annual report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, I am delighted to lay this 2000-01 report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools before Parliament. First, perhaps I may begin by both thanking and paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson, whose last annual report this is. Mike Tomlinson has made a huge contribution to education both as a teacher and inspector. I know that he will continue to do so after he steps down as chief inspector in April. I also thank the inspectors and those who work for Ofsted for their professionalism and dedication. Ofsted has shown the value of an independent inspectorate, identifying the strengths and weaknesses in our education system and ensuring that they 'tell it as it is'.
	"Today's report shows,
	'that the quality of education is getting better'.
	Our education system was recently acknowledged as a 'star performer' by the PISA study. We can now be sure that we have a good and an improving education system. We know that further improvements need to be made. There are big challenges ahead, and they need to be addressed.
	"Quality of teaching and school leadership is key to raising standards. The report describes teaching over the past year as the best ever. The proportion of lessons found to be unsatisfactory is at its lowest level ever recorded and the proportion of teaching found to be good or better has never been higher.
	"Schools are reported as being increasingly well led and well managed. This is a tremendous achievement and I thank and applaud the hard work of teachers, heads and all those who work in our schools.
	"The chief inspector's report acknowledges the enormous gains that have been made in recent years through reforms to primary education. Between 1997 and 2000, the proportion of children attaining level 4 by the end of key stage 2 increased by more than 10 per cent for both literacy and numeracy. This year saw continuing improvements in science, but results for literacy and numeracy levelled off. Although this was disappointing, the chief inspector acknowledged that,
	'we cannot expect progress to be even, year on year',
	and that:
	'We should, however, remind ourselves of how far we have come'.
	"As levels of achievement rise, it is more difficult to maintain the rates of improvement that we have seen to date. As we move towards our goals the challenge will be greater, but we are determined to meet it.
	"At secondary level, too, management and leadership continues to improve, with the proportion of schools where Ofsted judges this to be unsatisfactory now down to just one in 20. Achievement has also risen, with the Government's target of 50 per cent of children achieving five grade A to Cs at GCSE achieved one year ahead of schedule.
	"The chief inspector reports that in most special schools pupils are achieving well and that improvement has been particularly marked in schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In the mainstream, too, the achievements of pupils with special educational needs are showing welcome improvement.
	"As a result of the further improvements in teaching and leadership, the number of schools in special measures has fallen again and those who do fall into special measures are also recovering more quickly. This year, 137 schools were placed in special measures compared to 230 the previous year, and 194 schools had improved sufficiently to remove them altogether from special measures.
	"This report contains some encouraging findings, but we should not be complacent about the scale of the challenge still ahead of us. We have much more to do, and what we have to do is also set out in this report today.
	"The chief inspector commented on,
	'the variation in performance between schools'.
	He says that,
	'the gap between the highest and lowest attaining schools remains too large'.
	Ofsted goes on to report that while the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools is narrowing at primary level, at secondary level it has widened. Closing this achievement gap is one of the main aims of the Government's policies and we are determined to make further progress. As the report notes, our literacy and numeracy strategies have closed the gap in primary schools and we will further address the secondary school gap as part of our secondary school reform.
	"While standards of achievement rise for the majority of our pupils, there are some children who Ofsted believes continue to be failed by the system. It has been a national disgrace that children in care leave school with so few academic qualifications. Our 'children in care' programme shows that there are early signs of improvement. The latest figures show that 37 per cent of young people leaving care in 2000–01 obtained one or more GCSEs or GNVQs, up from 30 per cent the previous year. But so much more needs to be done and the report is right to draw our attention to this.
	"There also remains significant under-achievement in certain ethnic groups. Although there is still some way to go, again improvements have been made. The 'Youth Cohort' study published in January 2001 reveals a significant improvement in the achievement of many ethnic groups at GCSE level. Although there is yet no similar national data source for the primary sector, the latest key stage 2 test results show that inner city LEAs with high ethnic minority populations are among the most improved in the country.
	"This year we are introducing new national data collection arrangements, which will enable the performance of minority ethnic pupils to be monitored nationally and locally. This will help ensure that resources are better targeted at need.
	"I am pleased that HMCI draws attention to the value of the 'Excellence in Cities' programme for pupils in our more deprived areas. The programme is already making an impact. Standards in schools benefiting from 'Excellence in Cities' are rising faster than elsewhere. The latest key stage 3 English tests showed an improvement in inner city schools that was four times the improvement elsewhere. I am progressively extending the programme to more schools in clusters of deprivation beyond the inner cities. Twelve new excellence clusters are now operating, and I intend 12 more to start in September. They will be in Barnet, Bishop Auckland, Crewe, Derby, High Wycombe, Hillingdon, Lancaster, Milton Keynes, Norwich, Peterborough, Stockport and Wigan.
	"The fundamental challenge, of course, is to improve the quality of education for all our children. The Government set out in their White Paper, Schools Achieving Success, an agenda which aims for nothing short of the transformation of secondary education. It is a programme of work that is given added weight by the report we have received today.
	"At the very core of secondary transformation is the 'Key Stage 3 strategy'. Too much time and previous gain are lost in the transition from primary to secondary school and we know that at this stage disaffection with schooling can set in. We need to turn this around and use the early years of secondary education to build upon achievements at primary level and to provide a solid platform for attainment in the 14-to-19 phase.
	"The Government are investing £489 million in the key stage 3 strategy between now and 2003–04 and early feedback from both Ofsted and schools is very encouraging. From September this school year, the strategy began to impact on 1.8 million of our children, building upon the very best of the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools, to bring about a similar step-change in performance at secondary level.
	"Schools will also have to be structured more to meet the needs of the individual pupil. We have made progress with individual pupil targeting, learning mentors for individual pupils and encouraging secondary schools to have both their own distinctive mission and ethos and to accept their responsibility to other schools and the wider education community. This is where beacon and specialist schools have an important role to play. We want all schools to develop a sense of mission and, in doing so, to develop centres of excellence and networks that lead to innovation and higher standards for all children.
	"Yesterday, I announced the biggest ever expansion of the specialist schools programme. By September 2002, we shall have 1,000, each of them teaching a full and balanced curriculum and using their specialism as a catalyst for whole-school improvement and increasingly sharing that expertise with other schools.
	"The best ideas on school improvement are so often developed in the schools themselves. We want our best schools to be the innovators of the next stage of educational reform. That is why we are giving our very best schools greater autonomy and supporting innovation so that it has an impact on the whole system.
	"But none of this can happen without teachers. The report acknowledges, as we do, that teacher recruitment and retention continue to pose a challenge, but the chief inspector acknowledges that the measures we have introduced are beginning to bear fruit. Apart from rapidly increasing numbers of people starting training and joining the profession, the alternative routes are expanding fast, too.
	"Retention is mentioned by the chief inspector as a particular concern. A great deal has been asked of teachers and we need to make sure that they are supported to do their jobs. I know that workload is a key issue. I see giving teachers the time they need to teach as critical to raising standards of achievement. The School Teachers' Review Body will be making recommendations on workload at the end of April.
	"While behaviour in schools is reported by Ofsted as generally good, the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is also reported as being a significant factor in teachers' decisions to leave the profession. To help teachers tackle disruption effectively, we have expanded our programme of on-site learning support units and learning mentors. Around 3,000 learning mentors have now been recruited. We now have 323 pupil referral units providing more places with better quality teaching. The Connexions service will also offer advice to young people throughout the country when it is rolled out nationally later this year.
	"As the TES survey reported last Friday, teaching is a profession on the up. The typical teacher is enjoying an improved standard of living and enjoying the job. The TES says that seven out of 10 teachers are satisfied with their jobs.
	"This report is an important document. Its value is in its independence. It demonstrates the real gains that have been made and continue to be made in our schools. It also signposts for us continuing challenges—challenges that we intend to address in raising standards further still.
	"Finally, this report states that one of the reasons teachers leave the profession is a lack of esteem. They have no reason to think that they are anything other than one of the most important professions in the land. I hope that Members of this House will join me in paying tribute to them for what they have achieved for our children. We have it on Ofsted's authority that the quality of their work has never been better".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for letting me have sight of it earlier this afternoon. She made a remark outside the Chamber which leads me to believe that this is the first Statement that she has dealt with. I hope that she will be comforted by the knowledge that this is my first response to an education Statement.
	Naturally, the Statement highlights the successes referred to in the Ofsted report. That is understandable and, in any event, those successes are numerous. Like the noble Baroness, I, too, thank Mike Tomlinson, the other inspectors and all those who work in Ofsted for the quality of their work, which has resulted in the improvements that have been mentioned. Indeed, like the Minister, I applaud all the hard work done by teachers, heads and others in schools for the work that they have done and still do, often in very difficult circumstances.
	Perhaps the Minister will understand if I now mention some of our concerns. Starting with the primary sector, which certainly showed the best results, it seems that of the six main findings, one is positive, three are neutral and two are negative. Improvement trends in maths have fallen by 1 per cent to 71 per cent at level 4 achievement. I wonder whether that can possibly have anything to do with the shortage of maths teachers. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that later. I understand that one in eight schools is now short of maths teachers.
	Another matter of concern is that boys lag behind girls in standards for English. Ofsted says that the under-performance of boys is worsening year on year. Standards of reading have also fallen for 11 year-olds. Maths, English and reading are certainly basic skills by any standard; therefore, I imagine that the noble Baroness will consider those findings to be worrying, too.
	Equally worrying is the finding in the Ofsted report that, in order to achieve what is obviously very necessary—that is, essential literacy and numeracy targets—primary head teachers are finding it more difficult to make the curriculum wider and balanced, with other matters included. Indeed, the report states that four out of five primary schools fall into that category. That means that only one in five is achieving a wider expansion of the curriculum. I am certain that the Minister will be as concerned as I am about this, as it may have significant effects later, when pupils come to make curriculum choices.
	At secondary level, the problems are worse. The gap between high-performing and low-performing schools is widening. In particular, Ofsted has identified the weakening of foreign language teaching, and has also commented that 25 per cent of all secondary schools have unsatisfactory attendance levels—or, to put it another way, the truancy levels are too high. That figure of 25 per cent rises to 37 per cent in relation to all the schools inspected.
	Sadly, the report highlights the disproportionate number of children from ethnic backgrounds—Afro-Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi—who achieve poor GCSE results, which will hinder their employment prospects later. I wonder what suggestions the Government have to try to remedy that.
	I am certain that all the problems that I have highlighted are connected with one main underlying cause; namely, the crisis in teacher retention, which we have discussed and which was mentioned in the Statement. Because of the gravity of the shortage of teachers, many are now having to teach subjects for which they are not qualified. The proportion of such teachers is much higher in the temporary or supply teacher category.
	Later today, in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the reason for the crisis in teacher retention and recruitment will be discussed in much more detail. But one of the main reasons for that crisis—among others, of course—is the difficulty faced by teachers in terms of indiscipline in the classroom. Teachers have a lack of options when dealing with the problem. The situation was certainly exacerbated by the previous Secretary of State in not allowing pupils to be excluded when it was obvious that that was the only solution. The present Secretary of State is to be congratulated on reversing that decision.
	The other main problems—centralising, and the bureaucratic way in which the Government sometimes behave towards schools and, indeed, towards local government—often make the situation harder. Does the Minister agree that the message should be: trust the heads, the teachers and all those in education to do the job that they are trained for, and remove the obstacles to make it much more worth-while for those who enter the profession to stay there?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her first Statement to this House. She did it admirably. I join her in paying tribute to the work of Mike Tomlinson at Ofsted and in congratulating our teachers on what I consider to be an excellent report from Ofsted. They have achieved a great deal in the course of these past few years. The pressures have been considerable but, at long last, the combination of extra resources put in by the present Government and the setting of high aspirational targets from Ofsted is beginning to pay off.
	The Statement mentioned the PISA study of OECD countries. In that, the UK was one of the few countries to be picked out as an example where standards were increasing. As I said, it is a tribute to our teachers that that is the case. It is also very important that we are not complacent. The Minister herself said that. We must remember that one in five adults in this country is functionally illiterate. They cannot look up a plumber in the Yellow Pages because they do not know how to spell "plumber" properly.
	That is an indictment of what we have not achieved in our education system in the past. It also raises a number of issues in relation to the report that I want to put to the Minister. First, rightly, we have been increasing standards at key stage 2—those who leave primary schools. If children do not leave primary schools able to read and write, the odds are that they will be illiterate for life. They are the ones who sit at the back of the class and muck around when they are 11 and 12 years old. Then they drop out of school when they are 13 years old and become truants.
	I want to ask the Minister whether, in shifting the emphasis to key stage 3, which I believe is right and proper, enough liaison will take place between primary and secondary schools to ensure that secondary schools are aware when children have perhaps not achieved in the way that teachers consider they should. It is vitally important that the right information gets through to secondary schools.
	Secondly, is there enough awareness in secondary teaching about special educational needs? Far too many children who do not achieve well and who are put at the back of the class and regarded as being disruptive are found, for example, to be dyslexic. It is vitally important that proper diagnosis is made as early as possible.
	Thirdly, it is obviously extremely distressing for any school to be placed at the bottom of league tables. I believe that in this country we have too much of an ethos of performance indicators and league tables. They have been used in the Soviet Union and have proved to be disastrous. I am not someone who considers that there should never be league tables, but I believe that we should limit the number. Above all, are we moving forward fast enough with the value-added data so that schools are not always charted as being in bottom place? Many schools that come low in the Ofsted tables have extremely difficult intakes, and it is important that they are not always seen to be at the bottom.
	The inspector's report highlights the gap between the highest and lowest achieving schools. I want to ask the Minister whether she considers the specialist schools programme to be necessarily the right way in which to tackle that problem. She mentioned that yesterday her colleague the Secretary of State announced that 1,000 secondary schools are now specialist schools. There are 3,500 secondary schools; 2,500 schools are not specialist schools. Yet there is a case for making every school special. Are the Government confident that the specialist schools programme is the right way to move forward?
	I do not know how many other noble Lords look at the Times Educational Supplement. It contained an interesting article about a school in Derby called the Valley School, which had been closed but where a group of teachers—seven of them full time; five, part-time—stayed on last year in order to teach the children in year 11 to do their GCSEs. As they say, the children changed. Previously they had behaved in a foul manner: swearing, lobbing things, running away and humiliating supply teachers.
	The children have special needs, and they always have had, but with the ratios that there are now we should spend time with the children, helping them and taking into account their individual needs. In this example, by accident, students have just what they need: a small school with an experienced, committed group of staff, high staff/pupil ratios, stability and a degree of ownership of the institution. They are turning round the achievements of that little group.
	How quickly does the Minister consider that her Excellence in Cities programme is rolling out? We need more of that and we need to make such schools and pupils feel special as well as the specialist schools. The specialist schools are doing well. They are at the top of the league tables. The increase in performance needs to take place at the bottom. We need to look at that.
	On the issue of recruitment and retention, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned a number of the topics about which I wanted to speak. A significant fact is that 20 per cent of teachers drop out in their first three years of teaching. If one includes the training period, 50 per cent of those recruited drop out within five years. That is a worrying matter.
	Last week the TES rightly said that teachers are relatively contented, but some questions were raised. Teachers said that they did not like the long hours for which they blamed too much bureaucracy. The Secretary of State has promised to try to limit the amount of bureaucracy. Does the Minister consider that she is succeeding in that? Under the Education Bill schools can earn autonomy, so why not allow every school to earn its own autonomy? As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked, is it a matter of trust? We should treat the teachers as professionals. We know that they do a super job, so let us treat them as professionals and trust them to get on well with the job.
	I am concerned about the situation in relation to maths, a point that the inspector raises. Seventy-one per cent of children in secondary schools are taught by specialist teachers, but many children are not and the inspector found a noticeable difference. That is a real problem. Not enough people are studying maths at university to provide the maths teachers of the future.
	On truancy, does the Minister feel that enough is being done to create mentors? Are mentors being linked with youth clubs? What about children in care? Does she consider that 37 per cent of children achieving one GCSE, compared with the target of 50 per cent of children achieving five GCSE in grades A to C, is a low target? Should we look for higher levels of achievement?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Sharp, for welcoming the report and for their kind words about Mike Tomlinson, which I am sure are shared by the whole House. I shall endeavour to address all the questions raised, and seek forgiveness if I fail.
	I am conscious that there was a delay in copies of the report arriving in your Lordships' House. I can only apologise. That was not within my gift; it is not my report. I shall seek to refer specifically to what the report says and ensure that sufficient copies are available by tomorrow.
	The report highlights the situation in regard to boys. It says that the attainment of boys in English, especially in writing, still lags behind that of girls and that there are wide differences in the levels of attainment. That is a real concern. However, not all boys under-achieve, so it is not a universal problem. We are considering different strategies. For example, research begins to suggest that positive ethos strategies counter macho and anti-school attitudes. Literacy strategies targeted at boys' preferred styles, performance data analysis, pupil monitoring, the use of mentors and role models and pupil grouping, including single-sex teaching, have been appropriate. We have commissioned a three-year longitudinal research project from Cambridge to identify successful strategies. That will be presented to us in March 2003.
	When Mike Tomlinson refers to maths teachers and key stage 2, we should be careful not to link the two. He is pointing out that there will be difficulties in the future, which we accept. I look forward to the debate to be held later in your Lordships' House that will consider issues of recruitment and retention.
	In regard to the literacy and numeracy strategies, we recognise that, this year, the targets at which we are aiming have been stalling—a term that has been used. We are also conscious that children's learning abilities are not in a straight line. We are proud of the achievements that we have made in terms of the literacy and numeracy strategies. We believe that the results from the year five groups demonstrate that we should expect to see standards improve. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about enriched curricula. We believe that good schools provide full curricula. The enriched curriculum is part of raising standards. There are not two separate curricula; there is one curriculum taught in schools, which should be enriching and enhancing for children. It is through access to different subjects that children will enhance their literacy and numeracy skills.
	On attendance and truancy levels, for me one of the most shocking facts was discovering how much truancy is parentally condoned. The truancy sweep shows that so many pupils out of school are out of school with their parents. We have to do more to insist that parents accept their responsibilities to ensure that students are in school.
	In relation to ethnic minority pupils, we recognise that we have much to do. We know that for some ethnic groups there has been an improvement, but for others we need to do more work. I refer in particular to the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. We are considering how we can make sure that the matter is addressed. One factor is that we shall have information and data that we did not have before.
	As to behaviour, I fully accept the need to ensure that schools are able to exclude children who cannot be taught in those schools and for whom school is not a positive experience. We also recognise that it is important to ensure that such children are not left without full-time education. I am delighted that, by September 2002, we shall have full-time education for all excluded children. I am sure that all noble Lords will accept that this is part of the continuum of education, and that we should not view exclusion in the way in which we used to view expulsion. We must view it as providing the right kind of education for children who simply cannot be taught in mainstream education as we define it.
	I entirely agree with the statement about trusting headteachers. I hope that when we come to discuss the Bill that talks about innovation and autonomy, noble Lords will feel able to support us in doing that. I agree that we also need to seek autonomy in a broader spectrum. We want good schools to lead the way in what we should do next. Part of the purpose behind the Education Bill is to put the schools in the driving seat. That is a crucial part of what we want to achieve. As our schools develop, we hope to see many more of them being able to move towards that.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, we recognise the issues about the transfer from primary school to secondary school. We must continue to examine that area carefully. Good secondary schools have been working with primary schools, seeing how the children develop and developing strategies themselves for key stage 3, but there is more to do. That transition is crucial. At that point, the achievement of too many of our children dips, and we need to work on that.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the issue of special educational needs and early diagnosis. My particular mantra, as the department knows only too well, is that a child should arrive at nursery school with his or her little rucksack containing an apple, a ruler and a special needs kit, already defined and worked out, so that the child arrives at school with the support that is necessary to enable him or her to achieve.
	We are carefully considering the "value-added" point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and other noble Lords will know, we must ensure that we have the information from key stage 1 and key stages 2 and 3 and the differences between them, in order to do the value-added part of the equation. The pilot study has been successful. The schools that took part felt that it was a worthwhile experience. I believe that it will make a difference. However, we do not produce league tables; we produce performance tables.
	I believe that the specialist school model is a positive one. The schools that participate in it have described it as a process of renewal for the school. That is something that we wish to support.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the contrast between basic skills education in primary schools that appears to work well, and the analogous level of education in the Prison Service? On pages 25 and 27 of the Ofsted report we see that English and maths primary school results, with the slight question marks that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has raised, are ahead of all other subjects and unsurprisingly, but pleasingly, they are the two subjects where the quality of teaching is perceived to be best. But on page 55 of the report, we see that in prisons the literacy and numeracy skills are far weaker than in the population at large. Such skills are absolutely essential if we are to get jobs for prisoners when they leave prison. The teaching in both maths and reading and writing are said to be deplorably weak.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the report says that,
	"much of the teaching observed is of a high quality. However, the teaching of literacy and numeracy are too often unsatisfactory"
	We are very concerned about that. We plan to ensure by April that the majority of juveniles in custody have access to 30 hours of learning opportunities a week. That compares to the current 15 hours a week which most receive.
	Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that many offenders have learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Yet we know that there is widespread lack of proper assessment for special needs. We are working in partnership with prisons and young offender institutions on that issue. The plan is to set up a multi-agency working group to develop an action plan. We are also working with the adult basic skills strategy unit to review basic skills targets so that they better reflect the needs of prisoners.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, this is a good and encouraging report. I ask the Minister how she proposes with the help of all of us—because we are all engaged in this—to convey the good news to the teachers. What we need now in our society is encouragement and appreciation for the teaching force. Somehow the Government must find a way—it is difficult because it is a very subtle thing—to change the culture of parents and others into appreciating what they are actually getting.
	If these reported comments are fact—and I believe that they are—then somehow we must convey this matter and change the whole thrust from what I call, in Church terms, the half-empty to the half-full, or, in this case, the three-quarters full. That is the first point. Secondly, I want to pay tribute to Mike Tomlinson, but really through him to a kind of change that I detect as I go around schools. I visit many schools—community as well as church schools. It is about the approach of inspectors. There is a new culture of inspectors who are sympathetic as to what the teachers are about. In the early days inspectors went in with a kind of—as they saw it—public remit to change things, without really having a clue about what it was like to teach in a school. I think that that change is very important.
	There are two or three other comments that I want to make. The first is to emphasise the business of trust. I am sure that the matter will come up in the later debate. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on the question of what one might call "stability". Good things are now happening but teachers are constantly in fear of new changes being placed upon them without being given time to assimilate them and work through what they are already trying to do. If things are improving, we need to help them and not to lose our sense of positive critical involvement and concern. Somehow the Government and the department, through the messages that they send out, must convey this.
	I want to associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, about value added. It is very important that, if we publish tables—whether league or performance—somehow we indicate what goes in as well as judging what is the end product.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his comments about not only Tomlinson but the inspectors. The way that he has shaped the new inspection has made a difference. Many teachers would agree that this has created perhaps a more positive working relationship.
	I also agree with the right reverend Prelate on the important issue of stability. We are very mindful of that. It gives me a chance to mention bureaucracy, which was raised earlier. It is crucial that we make sure that teachers are not inundated. We are rigorous in the department to ensure that we send as little as possible to them; although I have discovered that it is surprising how many times one wants to communicate.
	In terms of how we make changes, one of the key parts of the key stage 3 strategy is concerned with continuing professional development. It is about developing our teachers and not telling them what they should be doing differently. That is a really important part of the way that we need to approach the issue.
	Finally, on value added, we know that schools that are working well with children of all abilities in an individualised way are achieving fantastically well. That may not be reflected in the simplistic way that we show how schools are doing. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we get rid of that system. Many people would say that there is now an opportunity to enhance it and make it of more value. That we want to do.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in what must be an encouraging report from what I have seen just glimpsing through it, there is one important criticism on page 87. It relates to the help that local education authorities give to new head teachers. The business of recruiting and retaining teachers depends so much on the satisfaction that the teacher can get from what is now a really very difficult job.
	It is unfashionable to talk about leadership in a school. But in fact that is what a school and what teachers need. It is quite significant that Mr Tomlinson says on page 87:
	"The support programme offered by local education authorities for new head teachers is characterised by inconsistency, with no local education authority having good practice in all aspects and one-quarter of LEAs providing unsatisfactory support".
	If there is one place where pressure could be brought to help in the retention of teachers and in their job satisfaction, it is in helping new head teachers develop their leadership skills in the schools. We are not just talking about new teachers so it may or may not come into the debate today, in which I unfortunately cannot join. However, this issue interested me very much. Perhaps the Minister can say something about it. Further, do the Government feel that they can enable local education authorities to do more about the issue and, indeed, give help to other schools which are not their responsibility?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It may be unfashionable but it is crucial to talk about leadership. Indeed, in our department it is not unfashionable at all; it is considered to be at the forefront of new thinking.
	Elsewhere in the report there is an interesting reference to the fact that leadership and management of our schools continue to improve, being good or better in some three-quarters of primary, special and secondary schools.
	Noble Lords should be aware that we have established the National College for School Leadership and have brought in a professional qualification for headship. We want to see a constant move towards leadership within schools. We know that it is through that leadership that schools will improve, teachers will be supported by their head teachers and that the school will be able to innovate and move forward in its thinking.
	We want to make sure that we have new and good systems of support. We have asked the National College for School Leadership, which runs the leadership and management programme for new heads, to review that programme in order to maximise the support given to heads as they take up their first headship post. It is of course important to work with local education authorities. We would expect that within their education development plans they will take note of the need to support their head teachers.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly declare an interest as chairman of the General Teaching Council. I apologise to my noble friend for the fact that I listened to the Statement in another place.
	I identify with just about everything said by the right reverend Prelate. But I want to amplify a little on the issue of Mike Tomlinson's extraordinary contribution, not just to this report, but to the change in ethos that has been achieved at Ofsted. It is quite remarkable.
	Ofsted has returned to what teachers always wanted, which is a critical friend. Teachers were never ever nervous of criticism; it was the manner in which that criticism was sometimes couched. He has remarkably achieved in a very short time a movement from the "SS" to the "SAS", and that is no mean achievement.
	From the teachers' perspective, I hope that the fact that that acknowledgement of their extraordinary work comes from a neutral source and at a time when public services have come in for something of a beating does not go unnoticed by members of the press. He actually said that teaching has never, ever been better. That is an extraordinary compliment to a large group of extraordinarily dedicated public servants.
	I shall touch on two further points with which I think that the House will entirely agree. Truancy is a significant worry, but the House should remember that 80 per cent of all truancy in the UK is with parental compliance. That is a societal problem, not a schools problem. Recently, I visited a school where the deputy head spends most mornings of the week going out into the local housing estate, literally knocking on doors to try to encourage parents to send their child to school. That is a societal problem, not a departmental problem. I hope that Members on all sides of the House will help to correct that misperception.
	Lastly, the report mentions the extraordinary work being done and the improvement being achieved in special needs education. The nicest single part of my job is visiting special needs schools. Special needs education is the really tough end of the job. The fact that it is successful against the odds—that although more children probably need special education than ever before, we are pulling that off—is a great national achievement.
	The reason that teachers will welcome the report is that it offers trust back to them and tells them that they are doing a good job and deserve our respect. I, for one, have been enormously encouraged by all the comments—even the criticisms—that have been made in the House this afternoon.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend and with Mike Tomlinson: I think that the sentiment is shared across the House that teaching has never, ever been better. That is a tribute to all those in the profession.
	I recognise the importance of the issue of truancy. As my noble friend said, it is parentally condoned truancy which is of such concern. We are providing more than £500 million to support local projects to tackle truancy and its underlying causes. We have launched a package of measures to help schools to set a clear, tougher policy on attendance and to stress to parents and the wider community that absences for any reason should not be tolerated.
	The reference to special educational needs gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to special schools, which do a fantastic job on our behalf. They work with some children who have complex difficulties. I was fortunate to spend last Friday evening with the head teachers of many of our special schools, which was a fantastic experience for me—I am not sure that it was for them. We were able to talk about the issues that concern them. I know that they will be pleased to have recognition for their work.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I should like first to join the thanks to Mike Tomlinson. Perhaps the best contribution that the Government could make this month to the cause of good education would be to ensure that teachers know how much they have achieved and to say thank you to them. They need that.
	Having said that—it may take a little longer than a month to deal with this point—the Government should address the chief inspector's comment that,
	"Accommodation is unsatisfactory or poor in one quarter of schools inspected".
	I know that that will take a little time to deal with, but to do so would be a good practical way to say thank you.
	Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others have said, good progress has been made for children with special educational needs. That is especially welcome, because they need the help most. The report comments on the continued overall improvement in the work of local authorities, but goes on to say:
	"LEAs' performance in carrying out special needs education is improving but is still the weakest area of provision".
	That should concern us all. I hope that the Government will encourage LEAs to consider how the best LEAs—which are identified by the chief inspector—go about that task and to engage in best practice.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree that we want to communicate to teachers the message of their success. I do not want to communicate in a way that adds to bureaucracy, so we must think creatively about that, but I will communicate the message. I hope that every noble Lord will take the opportunity on behalf of this House to spread that message. The point about accommodation is well made. That is not only an issue for teachers; we know that good design and good accommodation have a direct effect on standards, because they raise the self-esteem of children and teachers. We are trying to address that matter with a huge investment programme, which noble Lords will have heard me describe before.
	Special educational needs are also of real importance to us. It is important that local education authorities begin to develop appropriate strategies to support children with special educational needs who, in the vast majority of cases, can achieve at the same level as children without identified special educational needs.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Minister spoke of how much we ask of our teachers. Pursuant to a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, but without seeking to pre-empt the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will initiate later, does the Minister feel that the demands imposed from the centre by the Government have anything to do with teacher retention rates?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, teachers have raised several issues with us, including the behaviour of a small minority of children and the need of teachers to feel supported in dealing with it. We have already discussed issues such as being able to exclude when that is appropriate, but we are also putting in place other support systems and mechanisms. Teachers talk about their workload. The department must carefully consider how we can help.
	As noble Lords will be aware, we are making recommendations to ensure that we reduce teachers' workload. Those involve the more creative use of other adults in schools. Teachers, especially in primary education, should not be doing jobs that could be done by others. That will free them to teach. The recommendations also involve the use of IT—the ability to use computer technology. We must ensure that we are not using old-fashioned systems, if I may so describe them, when new systems could be quicker and easier for teachers. All those issues are at the forefront of our mind.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, may I ask a question about supply teachers—temporary teachers? I understand that there has been a great change and local authorities do not provide supply teachers as they used to. I was surprised to hear one of my noble friend's colleagues on television last night refer to the fact that supply teachers—temporary teachers—are employed by an agency, and that it is not the job of the school to check on the standard of the teachers concerned. Surely that is not the case. Someone must check.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am well aware of the case to which my noble friend refers. It is true that the majority of supply teachers are now covered through agencies, but the agencies are required to comply with the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and conduct regulations made under that Act. Those require checks to be made on anyone supplied to work as a teacher. We provide further guidance in Circular 7/96.
	As well as checking teachers against List 99, which is a requirement of the education regulations introduced in 2000, agencies are advised to check other aspects, including whether the teacher has permission to work in the country, whether the teacher has the relevant qualifications, whether the teacher has declared the right identity, the teacher's previous job or other relevant references and whether the teacher has a criminal record. Agencies should be absolutely clear that it is their responsibility that anyone whom they put in front of a class is an appropriate teacher.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the Statement has encouraging things to say about children in care, but concedes that so much more needs to be done. The report itself also points up some improvements, but one major resisting factor is the problem of recruitment and retention of residential social care staff.
	Is the Minister aware of the work of Professor Sonia Jackson, the acknowledged academic expert on education for looked-after children? It is her strongly held view that we must have a principally graduate-educated residential social care staff for children, both to model the excellence and success achieved in education and to put priority on education for looked-after children in care. That is what happens on the Continent, and that is why, as she says—and as we all know—children in care do so much better in school and education there than they do in this country.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am aware of the work of Professor Jackson, but not in detail. I understand that the noble Earl has raised some important points, and I will discuss with the Minister of State at the Department of Health issues relating to how education and social care can work together more effectively to ensure that we reach children in care, and to ensure that looked-after children have the best possible educational experience. It is important that such children get time to stay at school, to make friendships and, whatever care situation they are in, to develop the kind of support that one would expect in a family home.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

Second Reading debate resumed.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill and to welcome the proposals contained in it. It is an important piece of legislation, and, like most other speakers, I think that the greater part of it is well worth supporting.
	There are, however, some weaknesses and omissions in the Bill as drafted, and I hope that the Government will address them in Committee. I had intended to start by commenting on the speed with which the Home Office produced the Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has done that effectively already. It is worth remembering that the Bill stems from a White Paper entitled Policing a New Century, which was published in December, with a closing date for consultation of 21st January. The Police Reform Bill was ordered to be printed on 24th January—not on 25th January, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said—which was just three days after the end of the consultation period. There were over a thousand responses to the consultation. I hope that the Government intend to consider those representations as the Bill proceeds through this House and in another place. I hope that they will amend the Bill, where appropriate, in the light of those representations.
	I draw your Lordships' attention to one important omission from the White Paper and from the Bill; namely, the involvement of the police in the reduction of road crime. That point was made in response to the White Paper by both the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I have the honour to be president, and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I am a member. In its response, PACTS pointed out that:
	"The enforcement of road traffic law is not an optional extra for the police. It operates on two levels, sending out a clear signal to all road users that certain activities are not acceptable in a civilised society and punishing the extreme offender. These are important strands in establishing a culture of responsibility on our roads."
	PACTS also highlighted research commissioned by the Home Office into the criminal histories of serious traffic offenders and published as Home Office Research Study 206. It concluded:
	"The use of intelligence derived from road policing could impact on both traffic and other crime reduction",
	and that,
	"traffic officers have a dual role in the detection of both traffic and mainstream criminal offences".
	Put in context, that means that one is far more likely to die in a road crash than to be the victim of a homicide. For every one murder, over four people are killed on our roads. That is why, at the end of last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers published a manual on the investigation of road deaths that sought to place the road death investigation on a par with that of murder or homicide. Such an important publication is to be welcomed. Yet it would seem that the Home Office does not entirely share those priorities. Comments from the Home Secretary in response to the recent decision by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to reduce traffic policing in London seemed to suggest, first, that other forces would wish to follow suit and, secondly, that he would not object to their doing so.
	Mr Blunkett was, for example, quoted in the Independent on 12th January as saying that the measures to re-deploy half of London's traffic police,
	"would mean traffic policing taking a back seat in the short term".
	I must say to my noble friend the Minister that there is great concern among road safety groups on those matters. I have received, among others, a submission from Mr Chris King, who is a spokesman for the London Accident Prevention Council and the principal safety education officer in the London Borough of Richmond. He says that taking officers away from traffic duties will remove the visual deterrent for drivers to drive dangerously. He points out that the announcement of the measures in the national press had the effect of publicising the fact that drivers who drive irresponsibly in London in the coming months are now even less likely to be prosecuted than they were.
	The Government and Transport for London have set challenging casualty reduction targets for local authorities which will require full implementation of the "three Es". For education and engineering to be effective as casualty reduction measures, they must be supported by the third "E"; namely, enforcement of traffic laws. Will my noble friend tell the House whether traffic officers are seen as a long-term solution to the street crime problem? What if that does not work? Will the operation be extended until it does? We should realise that one consequence of the new approach will be significantly fewer police patrolling the streets of 24 London boroughs.
	One way of addressing the issue in the Bill is to include road policing as a central element of the national policing plan, the production of which is a duty placed on the Secretary of State in the first clause. It is a challenging opportunity to build on the work undertaken by local crime and disorder partnerships and to identify national priorities for reducing crime and disorder. The Government are already committed to a reduction of 40 per cent in the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads by 2010. Tomorrow's Roads—safer for everyone, the road safety strategy published in March 2000, emphasised the importance of enforcement as part of casualty reduction. I hope, therefore, that we shall find some evidence of government departments working together and complementing each other in important areas of public policy, with the Home Office working with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to deliver lower road casualties.
	There seems to be another omission in the clause proposing the national policing plan. So far as I can tell, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult about what should be included in the plan. Put at its most extreme, it appears that the Secretary of State could include in the plan whatever he or she wished—an outcome which, I am sure, was not the intention of the drafters. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider an amendment requiring consultation with such organisations as the Secretary of State sees fit.
	Also missing from the Bill is any reference to the standards unit proposed in the White Paper. That was an interesting proposal and, no doubt, it would have become known as "OfCop". It offers an opportunity to monitor the effectiveness and consistency of police forces.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but, as I made clear, the standards unit is up and running. It has been appointed. It does not require legislation. Most of the White Paper does not require legislation. The unit is up and running, with an expensively appointed head, which received a lot of publicity.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. That is reassuring, and I am delighted to be corrected in that way.
	In evidence provided to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the other place, Mr Richard Brunstrom, speaking on behalf of ACPO, pointed to the reduction in the number of dedicated traffic officers in individual constabularies. I am sure that the standards unit will have something to say about that, and I hope that reducing crime and disorder will be a suitable area for its involvement.
	As I said, there is a great deal to commend in the Bill. My concern is to raise the profile of road traffic policing to ensure that it is not forgotten. Above all, safer roads are part of a safer community. I warmly welcome Clauses 48 to 51, to which my noble friend referred in his opening speech, relating to testing blood alcohol levels, and Clause 52, which relates to driving off-road in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. Those are important measures, and I am sure that they will have wide support.
	Finally, I shall say a brief word about another matter. Some of your Lordships will be aware that, on more than one occasion recently, I have spoken in the House about the role and responsibilities of the British Transport Police. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we passed in December, implemented the most important of the recommendations contained in the consultation paper entitled Modernising the British Transport Police, which was published last October. It concerned the jurisdiction of the BTP when operating in support of a civil force away from railway premises. I had hoped that this Bill would provide the opportunity to implement other recommendations contained in that consultation paper, especially the recommendations which received strong support from those who were consulted.
	The inclusion in Clause 54 of new powers for the British Transport Police in relation to children and young people who play truant is most welcome, as is Clause 55, which gives the BTP the authorisation to deal with parts of the fixed penalty notice process. I support those provisions wholeheartedly. However, there is nothing relating to the intention to establish a new British Transport Police Authority, another important step towards the modernisation of the force. I hope my noble friend will consider that that may be an appropriate matter for amendment in Committee, when we shall have another opportunity to consider it.
	The Bill goes a long way towards implementing the Government's objectives. I am pleased to give it support. I hope that the matters to which I referred in my short intervention, particularly those relating to road crime and traffic police, will be taken on board.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, it goes without saying that the police are an integral part of the life of a well-ordered society which is made up of sinful human beings. They are there not only to detect crime, but also for that much more difficult task when it comes to measuring their success; namely, the prevention or deterrence of crime.
	We must not underestimate the demanding task laid upon the police at the beginning of this 21st century, living as we now do in a society in which, as we are frequently reminded, there is no longer one generally-accepted consensus for morality, for judging what is right and wrong as once there was, and with investigative media which trade on emphasising the shortcomings and failures of individuals and groups who carry responsibility for the well-being of society. For whatever reason, be it the lack of the proverbial bobby on the beat, the noted corruption of a few officers, or that general lack of respect for those in authority which besets today's questioning society, it is clear that the police do not enjoy the friendly, positive relationship with the public which some of us remember once to be the case.
	So while I very much welcome the aims or key principles of the reform programme which the Government have set out for the police in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes, it remains to be seen whether the Bill as drafted will have the desired effect or perhaps serve in some measure to undermine police morale at the local level, for reasons given this afternoon. For myself, I hope and pray that its good intentions are in fact fulfilled.
	The task of Parliament is surely to frame laws which enable our police force to be ever more effective. It is pleasing to record that crime rates are falling in some respects. The British Crime Survey—not a police survey—for 1999–00 showed that domestic burglary declined by 17 per cent, vehicle thefts by 11 per cent and violence by 19 per cent. Those are statistics which cannot be questioned on the grounds of self-justification by our police forces. On the other hand, sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reminded us, street robbery and drug offences are increasing.
	Again, the police are at the forefront of efforts to reduce racial tension in this country, though often their task is to stand between hostile groups when others who ought to have done better have failed and the flashpoint has been reached, as I know only too well from last summer's experience in Burnley. But I know also of the effective work undertaken, for example, by the Lancashire Constabulary, behind the scenes to prevent racial tension reaching that point—work in which my own diocese actively co-operates.
	I want to express from these Benches the Church's support for police officers as they seek to prevent crime, increase rates of detection and establish public support for their efforts. We try to do that through our police chaplaincy service, which also reveals to us the pressures under which individual officers strive to do their work. The Bill must seek to help the police in all of that, and it contains creative proposals to do so.
	In spite of the reservations raised, I believe that properly recruited, trained and organised, the proposed new civilian patrols are a way of enabling the police to respond to the difficult demands placed upon them by society to be, as it were, ever omnipresent. I do not see the patrols as a threat, but as a way to meet the demands of ordinary citizens to have a law-enforcing presence visible on our streets. Provided the patrols are properly authorised and given power by chief constables, they could prove an effective way to tackle what amounts to anti-social behaviour, checking the truancy mentioned in the previous debate and preventing its more sinister effects on our young people. They could provide public order support in dealing with crowds, support street wardens and victims of crime. But they have the merit of being optional; it is for individual police authorities to decide whether or not they want to use them. None of the activities I mentioned requires fully-trained police officers; but they require a recognised law-enforcing presence which will give the public confidence, not least in our towns and cities.
	Others will speak of the more technical aspects of this Bill. I share the concerns of other noble Lords about the balance between the powers exercised by the Government nationally through the Home Secretary, and those rightly exercised by the local police authorities and the chief constables. These days we live in a country where the emphasis tends to be on a culture of scrutiny and accountability rather than trust and responsibility. We see successive governments supporting that approach. We see it in the education and the health services.
	The Home Secretary is correct in his reported assertion that he cannot be in every police station, any more than the Secretary of State for Education and Skills can be in every school or college, or indeed His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury can be in every church or diocese—in one sense I take some comfort from that.
	We need to create a framework where chief constables are accountable yet trusted to know the job that they do, with sufficient authority for them and the police authority guiding them to be creative and innovative in their battle against crime. The result will be a measure of success which is almost bound to vary with local circumstances, but too much central direction may well affect the calibre of people prepared to take on this demanding job.
	The definition of "good performance" is not at all clear to me, though it can lead to an intervention by the Home Secretary. Chief police officers need to know on what basis their performance is to be judged, and on what basis and by whom judgments are to be made about the nature and style of policing they are to provide. They need to know to whom they are accountable and to what extent they can direct and control policing at divisional level. Adherence to a police authority's annual policing plan should ensure that local needs are being met, and they may not be the same as the overall national needs. There is potential for real confusion if chief constables work to policing plans set by their police authority based on local consultation, and are then taken to task for divisional "failure" against a different agenda directed from central government which can be enforced through directives from a Secretary of State, however well meaning that Secretary of State might be—I have no personal criticism to make of the present occupant of that office.
	From these Benches we welcome the setting up of an independent police complaints commission. The lack of such a body, rightly or wrongly, has served to undermine the credibility of the police force and done nothing to enhance public support. Finally, I welcome the White Paper's emphasis on the need for partnership between the police and local communities. The 1998 Crime and Disorder Act set up crime reduction partnerships in every local authority between the police, the local authority and community groups. In the diocese of Blackburn we are in the process of setting up a community chaplaincy to help ex-offenders not to re-offend. That has a strong involvement with the police and Probation Service and financial backing from the local authority. It is through such schemes that there can be real co-operation between the police, the Churches, other faith communities, other local groups and local councils.
	This Bill offers a new way forward for the police. It should help to rebuild public confidence.
	Christians believe that policing should be by consent, and law and order can never be imposed or work without the support of those on whom the law rests. So, with the points that I have raised in mind, I offer the support of the Church of England—and, I feel, of the other faith communities—in helping the Government as they seek better to police our urban and rural areas in the coming century.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate, whose speech will of course merit study hereafter, not least for what I might refer to as its worldly insights.
	In the past few years there have been two other police Bills. There was the 1996 Bill, a substantial police measure, and in 2001 we had the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. Now we have the substantial Police Reform Bill. Taken alone, this bald fact might be taken to imply that there is something seriously wrong with our police service in England and Wales; that it is in a bad state. I, for one, do not believe that it is. It is perhaps no bad thing that those who think as I do on this should, from time to time, say so. I, too, subscribe to the tributes paid to the police service by my noble friend on the Front Bench and to those tributes which have come from so many of your Lordships today.
	It is to the great credit of this country that ours is a citizen police service. It is drawn, in the main, from the communities it serves and its members do not have any privileges. They have only special duties, some of which, as we all know, are on occasion very dangerous. Above all, it is not, and never has been, the instrument of some politician or his party. We are so used to that in this country that we tend to forget about it, and yet a glance around the world should remind us of what a very rare and significant achievement it is.
	We are also rather accustomed to believe that our police are always fighting a losing battle against crime. They are not. Unfortunately in our society the springs of criminality are widespread; they never run dry; and in some quarters they positively gush. But protecting the public from them is not a lost cause. For example, in Kent, where I have the good luck to live, a combination on the part of the police of intelligence and technology has resulted in vehicle crime now running at a rate 31 per cent lower than three years ago and burglary running at a rate 26 per cent lower than three years ago—statistics which confirm what has already been said today about the British Crime Survey.
	I do not forget, of course, that my noble friend Lord Waddington administered a timely corrective to any complacency on this score. He pointed to the areas of crime which people most fear; that is, robbery, violent crime and drugs crime. During the short interval for the debate on the Statement, I legged it to the telephone and got on to the Chief Constable in Kent. I discovered that there is a reduction—albeit a lesser one—in violent crime in Kent, which is down by 8.9 per cent on three years ago. If I am wrong about that, I shall correct it at the Committee stage. Be that as it may, there are successes, although there are many areas where much more needs to be done to protect the public.
	In these days when reforming legislation seems to tumble from the Government's cornucopia with great generosity—looking very often as though it has first been given a good shake—one's first concern is to see whether a Bill will do any harm. The most important area in any police reform Bill to which to apply that test is, in my view, the question of operational independence from political control. It is right that we should look very closely at this Bill from that viewpoint. When police are exposed increasingly to public order situations, for example, which derive from political controversy or very rapidly become the subject of political controversy, that principle is more important than ever. If it were allowed to lapse, the great asset of their reputation for impartiality would be lost to the police.
	When Sir Hugh Annesley, then the Chief Constable of the RUC, first came to see me in Belfast after my arrival as Secretary of State, I said that I wanted to make one thing clear to him at the outset: that I had spent many years of my life as a law officer upholding the doctrine and principle of the operational independence of the police and that I was not going to change now. That information produced a notable relaxation in Sir Hugh's stern features—and we never looked back.
	At the same time, it has to be remembered that in our democracy it is the Home Secretary who is expected to stand up at the Dispatch Box in the other place and answer for any apparent failure of policing. This is not simply no bad thing; it is a very good and essential thing. He, after all, is statutorily responsible for the efficient policing of England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described it as "efficiency and effectiveness"—I expect that that is right—but, at any rate, words to that effect. The Home Secretary cannot be expected to carry the can unless he is in a position ultimately to influence how policing is carried out by chief officers. So a balance has to be established.
	Some interesting speeches have been made today about the effects of the Bill on that balance. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, said that it would have a "very drastic" effect on the balance and would shift it drastically in favour of the Home Secretary. For my part, I do not detect emergency alarm bells sounding among chief constables up and down the country on that score in relation to this Bill, but we shall certainly need to look at it with caution. The police authorities may prove a different matter; I do not know.
	In particular, we shall need to look carefully at the power of the Home Secretary to give directions to chief officers—this is contained in Clause 3 of Part 1—either consequent upon a report of an inspection or otherwise. I am not happy about that "or otherwise", especially when the Home Secretary is given the power to order an inspection from one or other statutory inspection body. At present, it would be better to limit that power to cases where its exercise would be consequent only upon a report.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked whether there was any evidence to justify a lack of trust in police authorities. My mind goes back some years to what happened in Derbyshire. I believe that that provided a fairly good illustration of how things can go wrong in that regard.
	It will of course be right also to look cautiously at the provisions in the Bill which expand on the present ability of the Home Secretary to bring about the involuntary departure of a chief constable. I should not be surprised if those provisions arose from the melancholy saga recently in Sussex. At first sight, I acknowledge that this seems to be a reasonable development of the balance established at present. It is true that there is no right of appeal, but, as has been recently remarked upon and held in the Judicial Committee of the House, there is a right to judicial review. In some ways that may be a better device.
	The other part of the Bill on which I venture to detain your Lordships briefly is Part 4—this has already attracted much interest today—which deals with the exercise of police powers by civilians. It may in part be inspired—at any rate in London—by a fear of what one might call "borough Balkanisation". I am sure that this will receive detailed examination in Committee. It should do, because there is a sharp division of opinion about it within the police service and even, I suspect, although to a lesser degree, in ACPO.
	There will be problems. There is not a significant problem with the provisions in Schedule 4 on designated officers being escort officers, detention officers, investigating officers and so on, but there is a problem, technically although not primarily, with the provisions to empower employees of a police authority with certain functions of a police constable.
	However, the real problem on which we should be focusing our attention is the provision in Schedule 5, which authorises people called "accredited persons" to carry out policing duties in the street. That is where the most easily discernible problems will arise. Those powers and responsibilities are fraught with the potential for trouble. Persons accredited may be employed by locally established businesses, whose character is undefined in the Bill, although the Minister has told us that they may include the managers of trade centres, for example. The terms of their accreditation may vary from area to area within a police authority and even from individual to individual within the same area. It is more than possible, therefore, that someone who is asked to stick around for half an hour until a police officer arrives will inquire by what authority such a request is being made. That is putting it politely.
	What kind of document will the accreditation be that must be shown to the offender? Paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 5 shows that a "relevant offence" does not have to be "a fixed penalty offence", but it may be one that has caused,
	"injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or . . . the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property; but"—
	here is the point—
	"the accreditation . . . may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence . . . unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation".
	By the time all that is explained, it will not be surprising if the offender, to use the rather engaging words in the schedule, "makes off". I am not making this up. It is rather nice language. I only wish that every provision was so engagingly and clearly drafted.
	I am afraid that I am not surprised that the Police Federation foresees frequent occasions when its members will be called upon to sort out the pieces of an unholy resulting mess. I raise a flag on behalf of employers of accredited persons. I am referring to Clause 36(5). I hope that this will not be thought to be too much of a Committee point. Let us suppose that an employer has specifically instructed his employee not to use force in doing his job—indeed that he is not empowered by law to use force. If the man, even though he has been properly supervised by his employer, as he has to be, uses force and injury results—perhaps a young woman has a miscarriage that she claims was in consequence—why should that be treated as being done in the course of his employment? The clause makes the employer fully liable as a joint tortfeasor. In ordinary justice his actions cannot be said to be in the course of his employment. That matter needs to be clarified.
	Will the Minister say whether the help to the regular police force that this part of the Bill seeks to provide could not be more acceptably done, in some respects at least, by expanding the role of special constables? A number of noble Lords have asked that question, and I ask it again. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, spoke of the current unpaid volunteers. They are very good. I met the parish constable seriously and solemnly pacing the streets in the country town of Cranbrook only the other day. He looked very splendid and conferred great reassurance all round. If full-time service is required, how will that be obtained without paying people the sort of money that the regular police receive? If not, why not spend the money on enlarging the regular service, or at least on putting far more money into paying back-up staff in police stations so that police officers who have made an arrest need not then spend, typically, five or six hours in the police station on the paperwork?
	Lastly, I draw attention to a piece of drafting which, to me, is of stupefying obscurity. I refer to paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which I shall not read to your Lordships, but it can be found on page 123 of the Bill. After labouring over it, I think that I know what it seeks to achieve, but, as drafted, it is worthy of the excoriation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Could it be tried in the vernacular, please?
	Meanwhile, I look forward to the Minister's reply and to an interesting Committee stage.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is a delight, as always, to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I agree with most of what he said.
	I declare an interest as a former president of the Police Superintendents' Association. It was not for life, like the noble Lord, Lord Condon. Once I had gone that was it, and I represent no one other than myself today.
	The history of the police service in this country throughout its relatively short life has been one of those roller coaster rides, with periods of success and acclaim followed by periods of crisis and threats of reform. I once wrote a brief history of the Police Superintendents' Association and was struck by the cyclical recurrence of crises, with morale and pay dropping from time to time and politicians setting up committees and inquiries to remedy the problems. These went from Desborough at the beginning of the last century, through the Oaksey committee and the Willink commission, to the much lauded Edmund-Davies inquiry that was set up by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, whom I see is in his place, in 1978, followed by the controversial Sheehy inquiry in the early 1990s. The police service has been examined exhaustively.
	The police are different from other workers and play an important part in our democracy. What singles them out from other employees? First, there is the importance of the job itself. No civilised society can function without the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of order in a way that is acceptable to the populace. That point has been made by your Lordships. Secondly, there is the statutory prohibition of industrial action as a bargaining chip. It is extremely important, therefore, that all governments treat their police force honourably and do not lose sight of that point.
	This is an important Bill and it contains many important provisions. In the short time that is available, I shall deal with two of its aspects: complaints and misconduct; and the exercise of police powers by civilians. On the issue of police complaints, I believe that investigations have always been carried out exhaustively and that they do not lead to the injustice that has sometimes been suggested. However, justice is not always seen to be done. The new independent police complaints commission will have powers in serious cases when no complaint has been made, which is to be applauded. Even more important is the fact that independent investigators will be at its disposal, which gives it crucial independence in serious and controversial cases.
	The vast majority of complaints will, as now, be investigated perfectly thoroughly by police officers—from other forces, in many cases—with residual power held by the commission to call in any case either to investigate or supervise. It is also right that inferences may be drawn from police officers' silence during questioning, as in the general criminal law. In my experience as an investigating officer of complaints against police officers, there is great advantage in having been at the sharp end oneself and knowing, as it were, the tricks of the trade.
	It is also pleasing to see that those civilians serving with the police and under the direction and control of the chief constable will be brought within the remit of the complaints system under the Bill. That answers those critics who ask how such appointees will be accountable.
	A matter that I wish to raise is the length of time of some complaint inquiries. While I appreciate that some inquiries by necessity will take longer than others, it cannot be right for an inquiry such as "Operation Lancet" in Cleveland into the conduct of Detective Superintendent Mallon and other officers to take almost five years.
	During that time, Mr Mallon has remained on suspension in connection with discipline matters, with his life on hold, cleared of all criminal charges. Granted, he is on full pay. The inquiry is estimated to have cost £7 million. He is a prisoner of the police complaints system. What price human rights? That cannot be right for any of the parties.
	Has my noble friend the Minister given any thought to putting a time limit on such inquiries into discipline matters on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied? When I was president of the Police Superintendents' Association, we recommended that the then chairman of the Police Complaints Authority should look into whether serious and long-running complaint inquiries should follow procedures used by the police in long-running and complex murder inquiries. That covered matters such as strict terms of reference, the maintenance of a policy book and, most importantly, a review after a set period of time by a totally independent officer to ensure that nothing had been missed. A fresh set of eyes can work wonders. Those suggestions were turned down at the time. Will my noble friend consider revisiting them and perhaps including them in any guidance issued by the commission?
	The subject of community support officers has rightly excited a lot of interest. It has been common thinking for some time that dealing with crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and law enforcement have never been matters for the police alone. The ethos of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the establishment of statutory partnerships between the police and other agencies. The public can be well pleased with the crime figures, which are going down, but they are not pleased with the lack of a police presence on the streets. I am certainly tired of complaints about a lack of police response, including for serious matters such as burglary in some cases.
	It is not always the fault of the police. We ask a lot of them. The "thin blue line" is an apt description in many of our towns and cities throughout the land, particularly on a Friday or Saturday evening. We are talking not about serious crime, but about anti-social behaviour such swearing, urinating, begging or throwing down chip cartons. When I was a constable, such behaviour would be confronted, often quite effectively. That does not seem to happen now. Standards in the community have dropped and there is less respect for authority, as has been mentioned.
	What is to be done? Leadership is important. Chief police officers should clearly lead by example and say what they want from their officers. They must practise what they preach. It can be done. Bill Bratton introduced zero tolerance policing to New York in the 1990s. Anyone who knew that city before he took over as commissioner will know what a difference he made. By making commanders accountable for their areas and ensuring that quality of life offences such as graffiti, litter, drunkenness and damage were confronted, he made a dramatic impact. There was an 80 per cent reduction in subway crime and a more than 50 per cent reduction in street crime as a result of his policies. That speaks for itself. Even the incidence of serious crimes such as murder dropped dramatically. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, rightly mentioned, there was another factor—he also recruited thousands more police officers to the NYPD.
	In Britain, thankfully, recruitment is rising, but it is difficult to maintain because officers leave on a regular basis. The reform programme attempts to stem that by encouraging officers to stay on with what I consider to be a very attractive pension offer.
	The public want reassurance—a uniformed presence on the streets. We used to have bus conductors, park keepers and the like who were visible figures of authority. In shopping malls and large stores we now have security officers—and what a difference that makes. Perhaps I should declare an interest as the director of a security firm providing such a service and as president of the Joint Security Industry Council. We hope that the cowboy firms will eventually go when the industry is fully regulated under the legislation passed last year. That will be good for the industry, for the police and for the public.
	Other organisations patrolling in uniform are not new. In Sedgefield and other places there are council-provided uniformed community patrols, without additional powers, who act as the eyes and ears of the police. I know that Durham police welcome them and work closely with them. The Bill will allow the police to recruit and train such community support officers themselves. That is welcome. They will be part of the police family and totally accountable through the police. There is a lot of fuss about giving them police-type powers. Let us be clear: there is little difference between citizens' powers of arrest and those of the police in serious matters. However, powers are necessary to deal with the quality of life matters to which I referred earlier, which do not carry a power of arrest. It is no earthly good asking an officer to report people acting anti-socially and sending him out naked on to the streets without additional powers. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, if two fingers are put up, he needs something to back him up.
	I have been in that situation. Before 1984, there was no power to detain people who were acting anti-socially. I hesitate to say that we used to use what we called the "Ways and Means Act". It would be made clear to the transgressor that, power of arrest or not, he was not going anywhere until he was properly identified. In this litigious society with its growing compensation culture, we cannot expect new community support officers to bend the law as I did. The Bill extends the same protections to designated support officers as are available to the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the use of reasonable force. That is perfectly right.
	I also welcome the powers to be given to designated officers to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of a range of anti-social offences, coupled with the power to detain for up to 30 minutes. Legally, of course, that is an arrest—let us have no argument about that. It is limited in time, but it is necessary when a name and address is required. If it is refused, an offence is committed.
	We cannot ask uniformed officers to deal with anti-social behaviour without such minimal powers. They will be fully skilled and trained as to their responsibilities.
	My only reservation is with regard to discretion, which is an important and valuable facet of policing in this country. Will community support officers be allowed some discretion, or will they have absolute duties without discretion, rather like traffic wardens? That is an important question, as the rigid enforcement of the law can, in some cases, lead to unnecessary aggravation and might even be counter-productive in suppressing disorder.
	Generally I welcome all the provisions of the Bill.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would understand if the little time that all of us have was devoted more to criticism than to praise, but it would be wrong not to praise many aspects of the Bill. I am sure that those on this side of the House will do just that. I should like briefly to mention some issues that have not been touched on, the first of which is whistleblowing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 excluded the police from the scope of the whistleblowing provisions on somewhat technical grounds. The Police Complaints Authority and ACPO were in favour of including police officers within the scope of that legislation. We shall return to that during the debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would want to associate himself with that, given his involvement with Public Concern at Work.
	I shall also raise briefly the issue of whether it would be appropriate and helpful for police powers to be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, as Roger Williams MP has suggested. I shall be interested to know the Minister's response to that as a general principle. If my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford were here, I believe that he would have said much more about it.
	The question of special constables has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. I, too, am a little perplexed. In seeking to uphold and further support the police in their difficult work, why has not more thought been given to that body of men and women? They comprise about 10 per cent of the total police force. Although they are part time, they have full police powers. Like my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, one wonders why there should not be a scheme to pay special constables. I was very impressed by the statistic given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris; namely, that 40 per cent of special constables in the Metropolitan area are from ethnic groups.
	I turn briefly to the question of police strength. A number of noble Lords have touched on that. I am perplexed that, as in the case of prisons, we in this country seem to go on year after year failing to grasp the nettle of how to deal really effectively with crime and punishment. It is not enough for the Government, any more than for their predecessors, to say, "But we are not doing too badly. The figures have increased a little although they are lower than they were". The truth is that we need a great many more policemen. Everyone who has referred to the example of New York has commended it. I am particularly impressed by the two police Peers, if I may call them that, who did so.
	Perhaps I may read a sentence from the Home Office research study which looked into the cost of crime to society in England and Wales for the year 1999–2000. It states:
	"The total cost of crime to England and Wales in 1999/00 is estimated at £60 billion. This figure is by no means comprehensive—costs of precautionary behaviour, quality of life, drug crime, low-level disorder, undiscovered fraud, costs in terms of attitudes and social structures and other costs are not included in this figure".
	If we were to increase the number of police in Greater London from 26,500 to 42,000, which would put us on par with New York, the total cost would be in the order of £500 million to £600 million a year. I am not a great mathematician, but if its effect was to reduce crime not by the figures mentioned by the previous speaker, but by an infinitely more modest figure of 3 per cent, the provision would pay for itself. If one came anywhere near the figures quoted for New York in terms of the impact on crime across the board, we should be making the best investment in the history of policing law and order. Therefore, I put it to the Government: why on earth are we not doing something about what everyone knows is a profound lack of much-needed resources?
	I turn to an issue which many noble Lords have touched on and about which everyone has been concerned; namely, the impact of the Bill on police authorities. It is worth contemplating the fact that the seven-page summary of the White Paper put out a couple of months ago by the Home Office contains only one reference to police authorities. There are endless references to the Government and the Home Secretary, but only one to police authorities. I do not understand why the Bill does not contain measures which, far from taking away powers from police authorities, add to and support those powers. Surely, we all know by now that the notion of removing powers from local government and local authorities to Westminster and Whitehall is not a recipe for solving deep-seated problems, but more, I fear, a recipe for compounding them.
	We do not need to spend a great deal of time, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned, looking at health, education, transport and law and order, to realise that the relentless tendency of both this Government and their predecessors towards removing more and more power from the regions and the localities to the centre has failed abundantly. That is because there is endless change in the Ministers who preside over ministries with their swollen powers, in their policies and in legislation itself. It may simply be because we have not tasted the panoply of power for a long time that we on these Benches have a deep suspicion of government garnering powers to themselves. We have particular suspicion as regards the Home Office, which seems to be the greatest acquirer and hoarder of powers of all the ministries. We saw a magnificent example in the anti-terrorism Bill where, but for a few examples of deft footwork in this place, there would have been a grotesque addition to ministerial power.
	We need to be satisfied here that any increase in central powers at the expense of local powers can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, root and branch, and on principle as well as in practice. As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have had no evidence at all for the assumptions underlying Part 1 of the Bill in particular. When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replies, I hope that he may be able to satisfy those of us who sit here like hungry sheep waiting to be fed with concrete examples of where and how the accretion of powers will help. We are always being told that justice should be of the people, by the people and for the people. What better example is there than the work of police authorities, the civilian powers of locally elected people and independent local people close to the police for whom they are responsible? Many have referred to the tripartite arrangements. I believe that the provisions in Part 1 disturb that delicate balance in a wholly unwarranted way.
	Many of us would say that the Police Act 1996 went too far in the direction of centralising powers. I hazard a guess that, were we to re-read the discussion of that legislation in Hansard, we should see that those who are now in government strongly opposed many of those centralising measures, and rightly so.
	Clause 2 of the Bill entitles the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to the discharge of their functions by chief officers. That goes a lot further than Section 39 of the Police Act 1996, which gives that power only vis-à-vis police authorities themselves. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, the problem is that Clauses 2 and 5, which entitle the Home Secretary to give directions direct to chief police officers, cuts right through the balance of powers, bypasses the police authorities altogether and in the process—no doubt inadvertently—undermines their power, authority and esteem. Beyond that, the power to impose codes under Clause 2 is accompanied by the provision in subsection (5) that,
	"a chief officer of police shall have regard to the code".
	That is a provision which is not present in Section 39 of the 1996 Act vis-à-vis the imposition of codes on police authorities.
	Clause 5 is much more serious to the autonomy and status of police authorities. Whereas under Section 40 of the 1996 Act the Secretary of State can give directions to police authorities after adverse inspection reports, under Clause 5 of this Bill there is no need for the Secretary of State to have received any adverse inspection report in order for him or her to impose directions. That will mean that the Secretary of state can meddle and compel, at any time and on any issue, if he is satisfied—that is the small word—that, in any respect, any part of any police force is not efficient or effective. Those two words provide an extremely feeble constraint on a misguided and forceful Home Office. I put it that way not because the Home Office or Home Secretaries are usually misguided and over-forceful, but sometimes they are, and certainly they can be. It is the job of this place not to hand to a Home Secretary those powers.
	The Bill provides no control or system by which a Home Secretary's intervention can be challenged other than the extremely cumbersome, expensive and uncertain one of seeking judicial review in the High Court. The Secretary of State is not required even to consult with the relevant police authority before issuing any of these directions.
	So for those reasons and others, like many noble Lords, I believe that that part of the Bill needs very careful reconsideration and fundamental reform. I hope that, in the debates to come, the Government will be open-minded in listening to these arguments. I look forward to those debates.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Bill's title is "Police Reform", and the Bill seems to produce a number of ideas that match its title. However, my concern is not so much reform as improvement. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that many improvements are happening even without the Bill. We need, above all, improvement in the number of police available and visible in local neighbourhoods. We all know the old expression "the bobby on the beat", and many of us look back to that as a happy time, but, nowadays, the bobby is more likely to be in a car. With numbers as they are, such deployment is often the only way of coping with the pressures and pace of the society in which we live.
	I listened to the speech on London by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and I know his great personal experience of the subject. I was in New York for New Year's Eve. That night, 7,000 police were on crowd control and security duty in Times Square. It was awesome, most impressive and trouble-free. Adding CIA numbers to the New York Police Department figure, there are more than 44,000 police in New York.
	Zero tolerance has been most effective. I remember the days when one was frightened to walk in New York. Now, there is a feeling of confidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said, the dramatic change has been achieved as much by stopping vandalism and minor crime as by tackling more serious crime. The results have been better than anticipated. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, financial resources are essential. I would add, however, that the political will is also essential.
	I speak as an ordinary person without police expertise; but London is the area of my local and regional government experience. London's greatest problem is its need for more police. In the days of Sir Kenneth Newman, the aim was to have 30,000 police officers in the Metropolitan Police. Today, we have about 26,000, although that number is supposed to increase soon to 27,000, with the aim of eventually reaching 28,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, in 1992, the Met had its highest ever figure of 29,000.
	The statement is regularly made that the increase in violent crime on London's streets is all down to 11th September and the removal of police from routine duties to take up security positions. It is not easy to convince me that that is the total answer. Returning from a West End event with my husband, we were attacked in a supposedly safe street by three powerful young black men. I was mugged and left unconscious on the ground. That happened shortly before the Summer Recess and well before 11th September.
	The Minister described the fear of crime as greater than the risk of crime. My noble friend Lord Waddington described street crime in a manner that I recognised better. My unfortunate experience had a shattering effect on my street confidence. Even many months later, I find that I am constantly aware of danger in the street and think twice about when and where I go out.
	The pattern is all too familiar. Although the city of Westminster is still considered a very safe part of London, the aim of reducing street crime by 2 per cent between April and December 2001 became the reality of a 42.36 per cent increase in street crime across the borough in that period. Moreover, crime seems to be moving to more affluent areas of Westminster, such as St John's Wood. In the same period, street crime has increased by 62.4 per cent, vehicle crime by 44.97 per cent and burglary by 26.34 per cent. Is it surprising, therefore, that last night's Evening Standard reported that,
	"thousands of Londoners are employing their own security guards to protect them from robbers and burglars"?
	The report went on to say that no crimes were reported between July and October on six Kensington streets where residents had paid £1,000 per household to employ their own guards. Does London want to become like Miami, where people arrange their own protection, to the extent that Miami police claim not to have access to 19 per cent of properties? I think that it would be very wrong if our society became divided in a way in which only the rich who could afford extra personal security were safe whereas those without such funds would not be.
	I was interested by the Minister's remark that he wanted to see more policing on housing estates. In the days when I was an area GLC housing chairman, covering one-quarter of London, we were always asking for more policing on council estates, but we were always told that police had no right of access because the estates were private property. Has the position changed? If so, I should be glad to have that confirmation. I remain concerned that some sink estates have become almost "no go" areas, certainly for GPs and even for police.
	There is a difference between private police forces and other local police who are already employed by boroughs. I am thinking particularly of the park police in Hyde Park, under Kensington and Chelsea council, and those in Battersea park, employed by Wandsworth council. However, the park police as currently constituted would not be suitable for working in the streets.
	Some London boroughs are, however, willing to meet the cost for police to work within the community in their own areas.
	Kensington & Chelsea council wishes to have borough constables to work specifically in certain wards or areas and to become familiar figures there. However, the council is very concerned that if the constables are completely controlled by the police, the situation immediately following 11th September could be repeated: officers funded by council taxpayers may be moved from the borough to somewhere else where there might be a need. That would entirely defeat the security build-up—the "reassurance patrolling", as the Minister described it—and the objective of ensuring that there is again a familiar officer on the beat.
	Joint control by the borough and the Metropolitan Police would ensure that those borough constables remained on local duty, as local identities. I ask the Minister seriously to consider providing for joint control.
	I am also concerned for the safety of community support officers themselves, but I was not satisfied by the answers that I had from a senior police officer who met a group of Members in the House last week. Community support officers (CSOs) will not be entitled to carry a truncheon, a spray or any form of protection. Park police are allowed to carry a type of plastic handcuff to use when they need to restrain someone. Will CSOs be allowed to use such handcuffs? I asked the officer how CSOs themselves will be protected. He said,
	"we would only put them in situations where there is no risk".
	The officer went on to say that, when there is risk, trained police in full body armour would be used. However, how does anyone know where there is risk? Almost every week, I see a traffic warden being threatened when he is about to issue merely a parking ticket. Too often, fully trained police officers on foot patrol are severely injured in the course of performing seemingly normal duties. How can we with certainty accurately assess whether a situation is risk free?
	It is essential that community service officers have some way of protecting themselves, even if it is only by use of reasonable force; otherwise they will be rapidly targeted as easy prey—particularly if, as we were told, their uniform is slightly different, making it clear that they are CSOs.
	Another point that I raised in the discussion concerned identity cards. I think that it is high time that everyone had an identity card. They would be helpful under the provisions of Clause 44(2) where the person acting anti-socially is asked to provide his name and address. I see that it will be an offence to give a false name and address, but someone who has done that will be able to walk away and may not be traceable afterwards. It is clear that if someone refuses to give name and address, he can be restrained, but if he gives an address, how can the officers have any idea whether he really is the person he says he is? The police replied that they were neutral in terms of ID cards and that they saw both their advantages and disadvantages.
	It surprises me that I am the only woman speaking in the debate as these issues are of great importance to everyone's life. Over 50 per cent of the population are women. In the older age group, which includes many widows, the proportion is much higher. This is a matter of great concern to women and to everyone else in the community. I support the Bill.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to win support for change, not least in the public services. Your Lordships' House and another place demonstrate that close to home. But change there needs to be, as the Bill proposes, if the police service is to be enabled and encouraged consistently to deliver what the communities it serves expect of it. The job we ask our police officers to do is demanding and we have high expectations of them. They know that and they know that we entirely support them.
	Although crime has fallen by about a fifth in the past four years there is still too much and detection rates are too low. Just 24 crimes in every 100 recorded in 1999–2000 were detected. Only nine in every 100 resulted in a conviction. I want to mention four reasons why I think that is so.
	First, we have forgotten the foundation on which policing rests. It is not the detection of crime; rather it is the prevention of crime. Not enough is being done now to prevent crime and, when it is, it is inadequate. Secondly, this happens because links between local police officers and the communities they serve have weakened at a time when family links have also weakened and members of the family are more likely to live 100 miles up the road than across the road or round the corner.
	Thirdly, just as family links have lengthened and loosened, so have links within communities. In many families both parents work. There is more to do and less time to do it. Fewer people volunteer to serve their communities as JPs, elected councillors, helping to run Scout and Guide groups or even local branches of political parties. I strongly believe that if we are to improve crime prevention we need to rediscover community and neighbourliness.
	Fourthly, these weaker links make it harder for police to work with communities to restore the safety and security too many feel they have had stolen from them. In too many areas communities feel abandoned because police response is either too slow or simply does not happen. Effective crime prevention partnerships cannot be built in this way. I spent years as a Member or Parliament fielding complaints from the public about being told the police did not have enough manpower to respond to community concern. I refer to a case where, for example, an intruder was seen in a garden in the Kingstanding area of my former constituency for a second night running by a neighbour, who rang 999 to report it and said that there was a woman alone in the house with small children. Even then in a high burglary area there was no response. However, I have to tell your Lordships that the superintendent in charge of that area said at a public meeting, after complaints that people could get no response when they rang the police station, that neither could he when he tried to ring in on his day off.
	That is why the proposals for community support officers, trained and paid for by the police, who can act as the eyes and ears of local communities, are such an important part of these reforms. Those police officers who oppose the measure cannot have it both ways. If they keep parroting to members of the public that there are not enough of them to respond even to calls which they classify as priority, they must not be surprised when the community turns to street wardens or local businesses to private security firms. The new support officers can provide a missing patrol presence on the streets where we shop and live to do what I mentioned earlier—prevent crime by making it more certain that those thinking of carrying out offences are more likely to be caught, although the trained police officers will deal with the high-crime hot spots.
	Sir Ted Crew, the widely respected chief constable of the West Midlands Police, argued in a letter to The Times on 4th January:
	"Any strategy for defeating street crime and enhancing public confidence in policing must include the deployment of highly visible skilled police officers in the high crime areas . . . and . . . highly skilled detectives".
	He is absolutely right, but under the proposals in the Bill it is up to chief constables whether to recruit community safety officers and, if they do so, where and when to deploy them. Sir Edward gives the impression that the community safety officers are a substitute for well trained and experienced police officers. They are not. They will supplement the work of police officers, not substitute for it.
	Running alongside the reforms are proposals on pay and conditions which make the necessary point that reforms and rewards go hand in hand. The Police Federation leadership may shout, "No cash—no deal", but the public insist, "No reform—no rewards". The leadership of the Police Federation is asking its 125,000 members in England and Wales to take part on Wednesday in what it calls a consultation. The federation reached agreement within the Police Negotiating Board on the heads of the proposals on pay and conditions, although some of the details have since been changed to the advantage of officers. What a pity the leadership of the federation did not make that shared outcome of negotiations clear to its members in the consultation process. Rather, in the February issue of its magazine, Police, in an editorial misleadingly headlined, "The moment of truth", it describes the proposals in a one-sided way as those put forward by, "the official side". That could give an impression that they were unilaterally imposed.
	After fairly setting out the pay and conditions proposals, the federation then attempts to steer the outcome in the direction it wants. There can be no other inference from what is said in the editorial on page five which states:
	"This is a ballot that is clouded with other considerations that have nothing to do with police pay but everything to do with the current abysmal state of police morale".
	So suddenly the leadership of the federation turns the consultation into a ballot and then imports other extraneous issues into that consultation. That seems to me to smack of an attempt to rig the outcome. It gets more loaded and biased as the editorial adds:
	"Mr Blunkett himself is part of the problem, along with his Government colleagues".
	Just in case there is a police officer left who does not get the point, it adds:
	"They have created a climate of suspicion and distrust that lessens the chances of the ballot being a dispassionate judgement . . . and more of an opportunity for police officers to answer back at the Government, politicians and pundits, who have spent more time burying the reputation of our service than praising it . . . They . . . have helped create a picture of a police service that is riddled with incompetence, corruption . . . and sexism".
	That is the worst, old-hat kind of yesterday's rhetoric and will disappoint most serving officers with its lurid language and cry for a return to the bad old days of industrial relations in the public sector—when the other side was always to blame. If the federation wanted a "No" vote in the consultation tomorrow, it should have had the courage to say so—rather than pretend that it is based only on the merits of the shared proposals from the Police Negotiating Board. I want to put three concerns to my noble friend the Minister. First, why are police authorities not being given any new powers which are needed to ensure that the 43 separate police forces in England and Wales reach agreed national policing standards; in other words, powers to build a national policing plan from the bottom up to reflect community concerns, rather than top down from Whitehall? Secondly, what can the Minister tell the House about the extra cash that will have to be made available to modernise and equip the police for the 21st century, in terms of training community support officers and the information technology that will enable each of the 43 forces to speak to any of the others? If existing budgets are to be raided for those purposes, other activities will suffer. Thirdly, when will the Government reach a conclusion on the reorganisation of police pensions? The estimated liability stands at between £34 billion and £36 billion. My noble friend the Minister will understand that money going into pensions, as it must under the arrangements, cannot be spent a second time on reform and modernisation. I particularly welcome the Bill's proposals for an independent police complaints commission, which follows a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place when I had the privilege of being its chairman—especially since, in given circumstances, the IPCC will be able to appoint its own investigators. I urge my noble friend to lose no time making it possible for registered social landlords and bodies such as the Castle Vale Action Housing Trust in my former constituency to apply to the courts for antisocial behaviour orders—the quicker to get them in place, to restore peace and tranquillity to many communities throughout the country.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—not least in his recent capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place. He will recall that almost one quarter of a century ago, when he was due to follow me in the other place to propose a Bill on animal welfare, paradoxically his own party Whip encouraged me to speak as long as I wished. In that spirit, I shall not long delay the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—who knows much more about these matters than I do. Such significant exposure as I have had to policing outside Northern Ireland was at opposite ends of the constabulary spectrum. For 24 years I was as inner-city a Member of Parliament as it is possible to be, involving the City of London Police as well as the Metropolitan Police, with New Scotland Yard at the heart of the seat. For an equal period, I have been a part-time resident in Wiltshire, where protection against terrorism brought me into prolonged and greater contact with the Wiltshire force than most part-time residents would enjoy. A Home Office study in 1997 indicated that Wiltshire and Kent had the lowest proportion of officers retired with medical pensions in the country. I never served as a Minister or even as a Whip in the Home Office, although my late noble kinsman piloted the Police Act 1964 through the other place as Home Secretary. In the 1970s I employed one of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Constabulary as director of administration in my old private sector firm—thus affording me a privileged leper's squint at police experience. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on the independent police complaints commission. Like most of your Lordships, I imagine, I can see where a significant part of the Bill is coming from—the mismatch between police responsibilities and police resources. Our post-September 11th experiences of shifting resources to anti-terrorism duties have had their immediate effects in increased consciousness of street crime. The dilemmas of a potential mismatch are with the police for ever and a day. RoadPeace—the national charity for road traffic victims—recently drew the attention of parliamentarians to the steady reduction in traffic police available to respond to 50,000 personal injury crashes in London. There was always the irony in Northern Ireland during the Troubles that the understandable absence of marked police cars in Ulster sent the number of road deaths spiralling above the number killed by paramilitaries. The fact that much street crime funds drug addiction adds insult to injury in the community. I pay tribute to the Met's efforts against the drugs trade in the West End. We must hope that the Government's present response to mismatch through the promulgation of community safety officers, other dedicated officers and accredited community safety organisations is nearer the target than the Home Office was with antisocial behaviour orders—though I acknowledge the utility of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which reappear in Clause 68. I acknowledge also that accredited community safety organisations have a good pedigree. The river police were set up to protect the West India Docks in 1798—long before the Metropolitan Police were created. However, the Home Office uses up so much parliamentary time that it is unfortunate that it is simultaneously prone to U-turns—as currently, on asylum policy—and in such short order. The problem that the Home Office is seeking to cure is serious and alarming to many Londoners and others in urban centres—I speak particularly with London experience—so it is good that the Government are responding. If we give them the benefit of the doubt on the principle that they are addressing—which my noble friend Lord Waddington does not—we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to fine tune the legislation so that it has the best possible opportunity of succeeding.
	Without seeking to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Waddington on special constables—he has much more experience of these matters than me and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew was also a Home Office Minister—there is a different situation with special constables in London compared with the rest of the country. That is why community safety officers are so potentially important. In the same way as trained officers in the Met leave for leafier forces elsewhere, my former director of administration in the 1970s now lies under the sward. I hope that somewhere he is smiling, since what is otherwise an ill wind for the Met is giving young constables a year or two in London, where street experience will form them as policemen much faster than could ever happen in any other part of the country. My former director of administration believed that was to the national good.
	In the envisaged duties that CSOs will perform is a touch of the St. Petersburg responsibilities being assigned to the European Defence Force, in contradistinction to the heavier responsibilities of NATO—although that analogy cannot be carried too far. I have read the account of neighbourhood wardens in Leeds and have myself seen the work of community policing in Holland where the Dutch, in part as an initiative to reduce unemployment, have been significantly more successful than ourselves in recruiting ethnic minorities into their subordinate force. The statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for ethnic minority recruitment of special constables can be matched by ethnic minority recruitment into the Territorial Army as against the Regular Army.
	It was notably good to see the pride and morale that members of the subordinate Dutch force derived from serving in uniform, even if they did not carry the ability to issue fixed penalty notices or detain people in the way that the Bill envisages. Eyes and ears on the street are still important in the fight against crime—as the street-level beggar proved in the Admiral Duncan pub bombing in Soho—and even more so in imposing civic tidiness.
	For success, it is critical that the CSOs earn public acceptance and recognition, which is why clarity in the legislation is so important. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith touched on the powers of CSOs. Differing powers at differing levels are capable of confusing the public. Common sense is not necessarily a guide. No. 10 pushed the Prime Minister into one initiative of on-the-spot fines in the previous Parliament, which the Home Secretary and the Home Office had instantly to disavow.
	At a trivial level, I once sat the exam for the State of Connecticut Highway Code. It had a multiple choice of answers to each question: two broadly sane, and two patently insane. The test was to decide which of the two broadly sane answers was right. I failed to gain 100 per cent. In answer to the question, which I narrow down to the two sane answers, "Is it your primary duty as a motorist in the State of Connecticut—(a) to avoid killing people; or, (b) to avoid making a noise?", I illadvisedly chose the former answer and failed to appreciate that fatalities were less important in Connecticut, provided that the accident was silent.
	If differing powers at differing levels can confuse, so can differing powers in adjacent jurisdictions. A lack of clarity or of familiarity will rob this initiative of public respect. The London Borough of Camden suddenly extended its parking meters' "close of play" in theatreland some years back from 6.30 p.m. to the later hour of 8 p.m., while the City of Westminster stuck to 6.30 p.m. A fair amount of constituency and parliamentary ink had to be expended before common sense returned in common treatment across a boundary with which motorists were obviously unfamiliar.
	Finally, on the issue of powers, clarity is required even to the extent of clairvoyance in relation to the powers of detention. In the current context of the Bill, it is possible to envisage episodes of an absurdity, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew mentioned, such as caused the disagreement between No. 10 and the Home Office about No. 10's suggested solutions a year or two ago. The powers of detention by CSOs, and their use of reasonable force, will need detailed dissection in Committee if they are to work; and their working well is important to public respect for this innovation.
	I end as I began with the Home Office. Despite the sensible words of the Minister at the onset of his speech in this debate, we have a broadly centralising government. When the Arts Council can, with ministerial support, solemnly launch a statement about the dismantling of the regional arts organisations in England by saying that there are three reasons for doing so of which the first is to achieve greater decentralisation, I wonder whether it believes what it says or is simply fooling itself. The Home Secretary acquired a reputation for centralisation while serving as Secretary of State for Education, some of which centralisation is said to be responsible for too many teachers leaving the profession—the subject of another debate this evening. We cannot afford to lose policemen in the same way.
	In my youth I worked indirectly for, and directly with, the Nestlé company, both in Switzerland and in this country. The subsidiaries were then ruled on a Roman consular basis by two men: one an Italian/Swiss and the other a French/Swiss. The former, who had made his reputation as a general sales manager of the Milano Secundo sales district of Milan ran continental Europe for Nestlé as if it were the Milano Secundo district. His colleague ran the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom—it was the days of EFTA, before we joined the EU—with a much lighter rein. An Irishman, who later ran the UK operations in this country, was sent to run the Australian unit with a personal send-off from the French/Swiss joint managing director, who said to him:
	"I guarantee I shall not interfere. I hope I am not obliged to intervene".
	There are powers of intervention for the Home Secretary in this Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew presaged, we should scrutinise the Bill in Committee with that French/Swiss distinction between interference and intervention ringing in our ears.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, Robert Carvel was the political correspondent of the Evening Standard in the 1960s and 1970s, and I believe for many years before that worked for the Star. He was a real political correspondent, not like so many today. One morning at about 10 o'clock when the Evening Standard came out, Robert Carvel had written, "Westminster is agog", with interest in a certain Bill. I happened to be here, and there was not a soul about. At the annual dinner for the Lobby that day I learned that Harold Wilson had picked up the same story. It appears that Bob Carvel lived in Northwood and that he wrote the article when he was shaving on the borders of Rickmansworth. I have told that story because the one thing that I am certain about is the fact that I shall be brief. The House of Lords is not agog with great interest in our activities at this time of night.
	I can tell the noble Lord that I entered the House of Commons 40 years ago and within a few days I was involved in the discussions on a police Bill, following the Willink report. The noble Lord's father was in charge of the Bill. I learned a good deal from him that day: I learned that the briefer the Minister is, the briefer the discussion on the Bill will be. I am not the Minister, but I shall be brief.
	I declare an interest that, since 1972, my wife and I, together with our family, had police protection to different degrees. We know the West Yorkshire Police, we know the Metropolitan Police and we know the RUC. I am on the side of the police. Nothing I say will ever alter that position. However, that is not to say that there is no need for reform.
	The Bill before us is complicated, though the principles are simple. I congratulate the Home Office, the Library of the House of Lords and the Audit Office on supplying many papers on these matters. I wish only that we had the facilities during the following stages of the Bill whereby we could take evidence from ACPO, from the Police Federation and from the superintendents, so that we could study some of the arguments that have been put. For example, when I served in the Home Office, I heard that some policemen were in favour of increasing the number of officers on the beat, while others thought that the increase should be in officers in patrol cars.
	Here, too, there are two schools of thought, and it might help to resolve the matter if we had those concerned giving evidence. However, I am not sure that we have procedures to cover that sort of hearing. We need to look at the role of the inspectorate and at the powers of the police, which are on the increase. The House of Lords is a place where we can do that. I hope that we shall have a productive Committee stage on the Bill.
	The one subject that I should like to talk about is the proposal for community support officers. When I first went to Northern Ireland I had been shadow spokesman for a long time. Much of Belfast was not under the control of the police—it is not so even now. I had a bright idea that came to me while working in the office; namely, to have auxiliary policemen circulating in these areas. I announced it to the House. The Chief Constable came to see me and said, "It won't work Secretary of State; it won't work at all. The IRA will take over those Republican areas and the Prostestant paramilitaries will take over the ones in the other areas. You must be careful with this idea".
	In principle, the introduction of CSOs is a very good idea. But are they to be accredited? What sort of uniform will they wear? In my old constituency we devised a scheme for Saturday morning surgeries: two councillors would sit at desks in different corners of the room, together with the community constable. The people would queue up outside. In the event of one of them raising a police matter, I was able to consult the police directly. But what is to happen to community constables? Will they still be around. They carry out the sort of job that we expect these auxiliary policeman will have to do. The proposal needs to be carefully considered.
	I should tell noble Lords that I have a sore throat. I have but one further point to make. We must use the Committee stage to investigate these matters carefully. Let us use the process properly. All too often during a Bill's passage through the House we have an ongoing Second Reading debate that continues for weeks. The Bill does not need a continuous Second Reading debate; it needs investigation. I wish the Bill well. I hope to be able to play my part in its progress.

The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I should like to say something about the issue of community support officers. In doing so, I should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police, in which I am a commander with responsibility for the force's training.
	Writing in 1943, Charles Reith said that,
	"the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare".
	That sense of collective responsibility for policing is reflected today in the overwhelming emphasis on partnership approaches to crime reduction and community safety. One expression of that dominant philosophy is the network of crime reduction partnerships which throughout the country brings together the police, local authorities and a wide range of other bodies to promote joint activity at a local level. Another example is that of the partnership between regular officers and the Special Constabulary which other noble Lords have mentioned. That involves men and women who on average contribute more hours per week for a longer period of service than those undertaking any other form of voluntary activity.
	In developing the doctrine of policing, therefore, opportunities have always been taken to involve others and to allow active citizens to participate in creating safer societies. Both examples demonstrate that it is possible to contribute to more effective policing without joining the service itself.
	Today, demands on the police are rising, and if our strategic aims of safety and reassurance are to be met, we need to develop a culture that seeks out new opportunities for engagement with partners, volunteers and the public. For those reasons, I believe that a properly accountable, trained and well-managed network of community support officers could contribute positively to making London the safest capital city in the world. How might they do that?
	Over the past decade, driven at least in part by government performance indicators, some progress has been made in improving our response to serious crime, major incidents and calls for assistance. When the public demand more officers on the beat, as they do, police managers tend to respond by pointing to the improved detection rates for murder and other serious offences, to the declining levels of burglary and to quicker response times. However, none of that appears to have reassured the public that they are safer.
	That paradox is nowhere more evident than in the findings of the most recent British Crime Survey, to which other noble Lords have referred. That showed that, although the chance of being victimised had fallen to its lowest level for 20 years, fear of crime remained high. More than half of the 2001 sample believed that crime rates had risen in the preceding year, while the survey itself showed a fall of 12 per cent.
	The significance of that gap between falling levels of crime and rising degrees of fear has now been recognised as a phenomenon in itself. The clamour for reassurance is an intangible but fundamental dimension of modern policing. The public want to see the visible presence of authority in public spaces and yet the police officers who provide that are all too often taken off the streets to process arrests, give evidence in court and undergo training.
	The evidence for that can be found in last year's Home Office report, The Diary of a Police Officer, to which the Minister referred. It revealed that officers were spending 43 per cent of each tour of duty inside the police station dealing with paperwork, preparing prosecution files and processing prisoners. Arresting someone, whether for a minor or serious offence, removed an officer from the streets for an average of three-and-a-half hours. When officers were out of the station, most of their time was spent dealing with incidents and making inquiries. Only 17 per cent of their time was spent on general patrol of the type likely to promote public reassurance.
	Such reassurance is not just desirable in itself; it can stimulate a virtuous circle in which increased confidence generates additional information and intelligence, from which more effective policing can emerge. In short, reassurance is fundamentally linked to the success of conventional policing priorities.
	Community support officers could, it seems to me, contribute to that sense of reassurance not by replacing police officers but by assisting them and allowing regular officers to make more effective use of their skills and training. With their complementary and distinct role, community support officers could provide that additional visible presence through which confidence is improved and fear of crime diminished.
	The principles of such an approach have already been established in the growing number of local authority warden schemes. Patrolling in the Borough of Islington recently, I saw the positive collaboration between those wardens and local officers. The Bill provides an opportunity to develop that principle of joint working, with the local beat officer co-ordinating directly a support officer's briefing, tasking and deployment.
	I imagine that many noble Lords will know their own local community officers and will have seen how they are often working alone and relatively unsupported. Such local officers could for the first time have at their disposal a means of providing additional visible patrol in areas where anti-social behaviour or fear of crime were most acute. That extra tier of patrol, which is less likely to be called away, can of course be characterised as cut-price policing. But it can, more constructively, be seen as an attempt to respond creatively to the dynamic of changing public demand.
	While the importance to us of the Special Constabulary will be undiminished, the service also needs people who are able to come into work at a prescribed time and carry out a specific task. It should not have to rely exclusively and unreasonably on the good will of volunteers. We should, I believe, take this opportunity to develop a mixed economy of police and support staff, just as nurses today undertake some of the jobs that doctors used to do and care assistants take on some nursing roles.
	There is a second way in which community support officers could assist in the policing of London. In the latter part of 2001, between 500 and 1,500 officers were deployed daily, predominantly in central London, to provide protection, reassurance and a response to major incidents and security alerts. Given the scale of that demand, they were drawn from other boroughs of London, and the impact of that abstraction was significant and damaging. Some of their security duties, such as the management of cordons and the patrol of discrete areas, were labour intensive and could, I believe, have been undertaken by community support officers, properly briefed and properly supervised.
	Visiting a central London police station just before Christmas, I found that 40 per cent of the duty time of probationer constables—that is to say, officers with less than two years' service—was being spent on security duties. For all its importance, that deployment was providing them with little opportunity to develop the wider range of skills that are expected of police officers. It could not offer the breadth of challenge that attracted them to policing and which will retain them in the service.
	In 1829, when presenting his first Bill for,
	"Improving Police in and near the Metropolis",
	Robert Peel told Parliament that he intended to,
	"proceed slowly with the experiment with a cautious feeling of the way and deriving aid from experience, essential to the ultimate success of all reform".
	Integrating community support officers into policing may require just such an approach. We will need to involve local communities in those discussions if the notion is to win public consent. If the issues of control, accountability and training are properly attended to, I believe that the case can be made.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us an up-to-date review of policing from his own point of view. The House must take careful note of everything that he said. In a moment I shall pursue his question of what we should do about the special constables, how they should be paid and what allowances they should have.
	I am rather worried by the idea that outside London we may find ourselves faced with a tiered police force. I am afraid that I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Waddington said about the community policeman. There is a danger of the Treasury leaning on chief constables to establish why some use cannot be made of them.
	As a whole, we do not like wardens; we do not like people exercising police power as civilians. I refer not only to traffic wardens. We do not like people displaying anti-social behaviour, causing damage to property and stopping cars. Last week I was very impressed when a very senior and well respected detective inspector in Leicester said to me, "You have no idea the amount of trouble we have to get them out of". I believe that that probably applies to many community police officers.
	I believe that we are also in danger of moving, as the French and Italians have done, towards a form of tied police service. After all, the Republican Guard was incorporated into the main French force in 1849. But it has a very limited police power. I was lucky enough to have the Republican Guard at the Olympia horse show four years ago. Its members are very good horsemen, but their police powers are limited, unlike the English mounted police, who come every third year to Olympia. They are, first and foremost, policemen and women and then good horsemen afterwards. I am also concerned as to what might happen in Italy, where, I am advised, 10 different policemen can all have different powers.
	I now turn to the question of special constables in Leicestershire and Rutland. There we have 2,000 full-time officers and exactly 200 special constables. They are not paid but they receive out-of-pocket expenses and—I may be corrected on this point—they complete 10 training sessions a year. We should approach the specials in exactly the same way as we do the Territorial Army. Provided that they are available for a limited numbers of days and complete their training sessions, they should quality for a tax-free bounty. I believe that the new police negotiating body, which is now examining the matter of payment, should make a firm recommendation about a bounty for special constables. It should be based on the interruption to family life caused by their special duties and it should allow them to take their families on a good holiday as a result of that interruption.
	If, at the age of 18½ someone in a village decides to join the police force, that is reflected throughout the whole community. Everyone considers it to be excellent that the person in question has joined, and it also reflects on the school. The House will be aware that, when trainees first join, they have 15 weeks of virtually hard labour, followed by two years' probation and then a final six weeks. Therefore, they become fully-fledged police officers at the end of three years.
	I believe that we must begin to consider police recruitment as a whole. Today, many people go to university and we must start to recruit there. I do not refer to the old-fashioned scheme of accelerated promotion for graduates. I do not believe that that was fair, and it never worked. However, I believe that we should look at the possibility of a person at university spending his long vacation holiday with the police service, for which he should be paid. If at the end of his three-year period at university he does not join the police force, he must pay back the money. That is what happens now in the armed services.
	Therefore, if one spends part of a gap year gaining work experience with the police and then completes three years' police training during the long vacation, one should start in the police force on an equal footing with those who have just joined the force at the age of 18½. I believe that we should now give serious consideration to recruiting from universities because that is where almost everyone seems to go. There are various degree subjects at university; none the less, that is where nearly everyone seems to end up.
	Finally, because Mr Edmund-Davies lived in my constituency, I was conscious of what he did for the police service. We shall have to face the fact that all those who decided to join up or extend their service following Mr Edmund-Davies's reforms will all start to retire in 2006. I believe that a larger number of people are retiring than at present we probably realise.
	I have nothing more to add, other than the fact that I believe that the Police Negotiating Board should do everything that was done in 1976. I also believe that a special review should take place of the terms relating to special constables, and we should consider once again a proper form of university recruitment.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, the preservation of public order and the protection of the public against crime is carried out in our country by community-based police forces. It is a system which we have adopted for many, many years. Its successful continuance over that period of time has been due to the fact that the public have confidence in their police and the local police force knows that it has the trust of the people whom it serves. That is a vital aspect of our national life which we should always seek to preserve.
	Although we have community-based police forces, we nevertheless control them through a statutory framework. Therefore, any police Bill is of singular importance and we should investigate its provisions to determine whether they will, at the very least, maintain the present level of confidence and, wherever possible, increase it. This Bill seeks to achieve that objective. I raise three issues concerning the Bill in order to seek to ensure, as we investigate it in detail, that the public confidence which we value so much will not be endangered.
	My first comment is a query about the structure of Parts 1 and 3 of the Bill. If our 43 police areas each function under the command of a chief constable responsible to his police authority, with ultimate responsibility lying with the Secretary of State, how is that relationship to be maintained so that local policing is preserved?
	In opening the debate, the Minister helpfully indicated the two strands of Parts 1 and 3 which the Government consider to be important in seeking, if they must, to direct the work of local police forces. The first will be the introduction of a national plan, which itself would have the consequence of local plans to implement it. Therefore, my first query is: what place is there in the national plan structure for the Secretary of State to determine and, if necessary, to direct chief constables of police to use support staff; and, if there is such use, what will be the amount? At present the Bill proposes that the power to use support staff will be in the hands of the chief constable. But how does that fit in with a national plan for policing that seeks to enforce efficiency and effectiveness? That is my first query.
	The second is to reflect the concern which, with our historical dislike of the concept of a national police force, we all have that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will have as a last resort—that was my noble friend's phrase in opening the debate—the power to dismiss a chief constable by enforcing retirement or resignation. In what circumstances can we envisage that measure of last resort being exercised, particularly if a chief constable honestly and genuinely disagrees with a particular feature of the national plan, and his police authority and the local community agree with him? Those are not critical queries. They are designed to give a shape to the Bill that will preserve, rather than damage, confidence in this first area of community-based policing.
	My second comment is one of commendation in relation to police complaints. The stature of any public service is best tested by the way in which it allows the public remedies for misbehaviour by its servants. In my view, this Bill creates a police complaints commission of high quality. I suspect that it is a rare occasion in this House when a noble Lord can congratulate the Government on spending three times more than in the past on a public service, but I understand that to be their intention. Some £14 million or £15 million will be spent on this commission. I applaud that expenditure, dictated as it is within the Bill through an efficient system of complaint investigation and resolution. As one of my noble friends said earlier, the reason for delays in the investigation of police complaints is because the fact of investigation has become the remedy for a complaint, when the complainant wishes to achieve resolution. That is an important feature of daily life. I commend this first aspect of the police complaints commission very warmly indeed.
	I turn to the internal disciplining of police officers. For many years at the junior Bar I was retained by the Police Federation in my region to represent it in every aspect—civil and criminal—but particularly at internal private disciplinary hearings conducted by chief constables that did not involve members of the public. It was difficult to understand the length of time that they took, the reason why suspension should be so lengthy and the reason why only the chief constable could conduct the tribunal. I am not sure what the present system is; I suspect that it is much the same. Important though it is to preserve force morale and the line of discipline, it is simply unacceptable for any chief constable to expect to chair every such inquiry.
	In looking at the Bill, and in putting it into context for police officers, I hope that in due course chief constables will allow their deputies to conduct the tribunals, or even an independent lawyer, with the one target of achieving an early completion of the complaint. I stress that because within Part 2 of the Bill there is an interconnection between internal complaints and reference of them by the chief constable to the independent commission. One should not be out of sync with the other in terms of expedition.
	My third comment is caution in relation to Part 4 of the Bill. It is a self-evident truth that a security guard is cheaper than a police officer who has had the benefit of long-term training and who has the benefit of sickness pay and pension entitlement. That economic truth should not dictate the future shape of our police. I invite a cautious inquiry to be made of some of the issues that will arise from the use of support staff as envisaged in the Bill.
	First, I refer to consistency of use and training. The giving of a power to individual chief constables to determine in each of their forces who is acceptable and who is not is perfectly reasonable, provided that that power is exercised consistently and not, in certain circumstances, under the pressure of desperate need, when the less acceptable may be accepted rather than the acceptable. That is consistency of use and training.
	Secondly, echoing the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, if a community service officer is entitled to use reasonable force—I understand that he faces that prospect unarmed—a drunken hooligan will be aware that the person who may seek to control him, under the powers given to him under this Bill, will not be armed and will not be able to defend himself, except with his own physical strength. In my view, that is likely to give rise to the real risk that such support officers, seeking to do their duty, will be the subject of serious violence. That area requires careful attention.
	Thirdly, as yet no one has mentioned the important fact that the Bill allows support staff to act as investigating officers and detention officers. The Explanatory Notes state that the first of those categories covers people like scenes-of-crime officers. That is not so. A quick perusal of Schedule 4 indicates that such an investigating officer will be armed with the same powers of search and seizure as any ordinary police officer. Other than in cases of violent crime where armed police may be involved, will we see search warrants and search and seizure carried out by support staff and not by fully qualified police officers? If not, how will the code that allows them to be used be applied in a way that avoids that?
	On detention officers, a number of individual powers are given to someone acting as a detention officer who is not a police officer. The Bill is silent on whether he or she will have the power to detain within a police station, by which I mean to exercise the authority of a custody sergeant, to inspect someone in a cell to ensure that one does not face—as one sometimes has to in this life—the terrible event of a cell death or unnecessary violence. What role will such a detention officer play in that scenario? The Bill does not explain.
	The Association of Community Service Organisations enjoys, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said—if "enjoy" is the right word—the liability that the chief officer of police enjoys in respect of claims made against either one or both. Will a chief constable ensure that any ACSO that he uses will be properly insured and that the staff are properly trained, not to meet claims, but to ensure that claims can be avoided? In recent years a problem that has beset the Metropolitan force has been the scale and complexity of actions against the police. It would be unfortunate if the support staff provisions of this Bill served merely to extend that unhelpful area of litigation.
	Lastly with regard to Part 4, we can look forward, I hope, to each chief constable employing such support staff issuing an annual report as to his experience of them—not just with regard to what they did, but on whether it was worth the money and whether their use should continue.
	These comments of query, commendation and caution should not be thought to undermine what is a commendable Bill. However, I should like to make two points in conclusion. First, the Government are introducing a new system of policing. They are putting the powers of support staff policing into the hands of chief constables. That does not permit the Government to renege on a duty they owe: to determine from time to time by their own report to this House and the public whether this system is working; and, if it is not, to show a readiness, which I am sure they will, to adapt and change as necessary.
	Secondly, this Bill is innovative. It will bring about a different form of policing. But I suggest that it should not be passed as if it is fixed for all time. We should not face the situation anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, of the budgetary allowances of policing hereafter being dictated by the existence of these two forms of policing. Of course I accept the public pressures on resources that might lead to that risk. But it is a risk that we must avoid because—closing as I opened—if we allow that state of affairs to arise, it is certain sure that the public will lose confidence in the policing system. They will feel that the police they were used to are a police apart, and that they are getting second best. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill and certainly not of the Government.
	It is our duty as citizens, and the Government's as the conductors of state policy, to ensure that, in future, confidence in the police is maintained to the level which it has been in the past.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his Bill. I intend to cover four subjects: special constables; the provision of escorts for abnormal loads; the management of police recovery schemes for broken down vehicles; and the Ministry of Defence and British Transport Police.
	Many noble Lords have raised the issue of special constables. I have no special knowledge of them. But it is interesting to compare the relationships between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army and the regular police and the Special Constabulary. As a TA officer I have no doubt that I have a healthy relationship with my regular counterparts and also that I have power of command over regular officers and subordinate officers. Equally, I would demur to a subordinate regular officer if I thought that he had greater knowledge of the matter in hand.
	I accept that some special constables do not want to be paid because that is against their ethos. But I wonder whether it is the most efficient and effective way of going about the business. We may not reach a conclusion about special constables during the passage of the Bill, but I believe that it will be a fruitful area of study.
	I remind the House that I am the president of the Heavy Transport Association. I also own and operate a very heavy transporter that lives at the REME museum at Bordon camp. Clearly, abnormal loads have to be escorted because of their very nature. Traditionally the police have provided this service, normally for no charge, but actually there is no statutory provision for so doing.
	The problem is that escorting abnormal loads is not regarded as a core police activity. As a result, hauliers of heavy loads often have to wait several hours in order to get a police escort. When police constabularies change they have to wait another period of several hours. Police escorts are normally available only during main working hours. But, ideally, abnormal loads should be moved at unsocial hours, and even in the small hours—one or two o'clock in the morning. This is a subject that is very dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley.
	Initial options for change centred on a policy of "contractorising" the police function. That caused major concerns in industry because there was the worry of having a monopoly supplier working for the police but being paid for by the hauliers. It was seen as very controversial. Many operators wanted to stay with the concept of a free service, even if it meant waiting a considerable length of time. Of course that was not a likely outcome. As a result there was not much government activity, but the police have been steadily relaxing the escorting criteria. Also the police are becoming fairly relaxed about allowing self-escorting. I have done it myself. It has also been carried out in North Wales.
	These matters were covered in an Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, on 2nd May 2001. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, when talking about the 1998 consultation, said:
	"One can draw from that [the consultation] the implication that there was not absolute consensus on the way forward".—[Official Report, 2/5/01; col. 1940.]
	I think that he was quite right at the time. The Road Haulage Association, for instance, shared my concern about the dangers of "contractorising a police function". It raised difficult issues of accountability and responsibility and also the expense to the operator.
	However, now there is consensus along the lines of the chief constable authorising the movement but telling the haulier that he will have to provide his own escort, but in accordance with ACPO guidelines. The ACPO guidelines might cover the experience of the escort driver, say, three years of having a Class 1 Heavy Goods Vehicle licence, the lights, the signs and equipment carried within the escort vehicle. Detailed studies have already been undertaken. Moving in this direction does not require any legislation, either primary or secondary. The chief constable already has the power to go in this direction. I have mentioned the situation in North Wales and there are other informal arrangements.
	Noble Lords may not be aware, but the Metropolitan Police, who have serious pressing policing priorities which have been touched on today, will now escort only abnormal loads over 13 feet 6 inches wide and 100 tonnes gross train weight. If I were to move an abnormal load of that size on a single carriageway without some form of escort—not necessarily a police escort—I would regard myself as being grossly negligent.
	I do not take issue with what the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has done with regard to his priorities. But it indicates that urgent action is required in this area. At the present time, the Metropolitan Police are moving very fast, but the hauliers do not have their own escort facilities. So right now, hauliers are trying to move very heavy loads across central London without any escorts. There is a real risk there.
	I intend to meet the Minister's right honourable friend Mr Denham to confirm consensus on the way forward. I hope that the Minister will facilitate that so that it can take place before we get to the Committee stage. It may possibly save time in Committee.
	I believe that private escorting is in line with the Minister's policy on police reform. It will reduce inconvenience to the public and save considerable sums of money to the industry and of course make better use of police resources.
	Charging for escorts is a related issue. It will be appropriate for the police to charge in certain circumstances, but it is not clear whether the charges are legal or are set at the appropriate level. I will address that issue in Committee. In Committee, I shall also raise the issue of police recovery schemes for broken-down vehicles and accidents. There have been several court cases involving the chief constable and the new recovery schemes, some of which have questionable integrity. On the back of those schemes, the police force gets free recovery. We have had serious problems with one of those schemes in south Wales. On the other hand, we also have a serious safety problem. The hard shoulder is the most dangerous part of the motorway, and we cannot afford to have vehicles parked on it, waiting any length of time for recovery. Action is needed.
	Breakdowns on highly congested roads must be cleared extremely quickly. Perhaps, the Highways Agency ought to consider having some sort of free recovery system, rather like the contraflow systems, in order to remove the congestion at the earliest possible moment. There is no consensus about recovery schemes, unlike private escorting. They are difficult problems, and we should explore them in Committee. However, I do not expect to see much progress in the short term.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and others raised the issue of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police. Several provisions have slipped out of the Bill, but we can, of course, correct that in Committee. I look forward to subsequent stages and, in particular, listening to the suggestions of other noble Lords for the improvement of the Bill.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—the only noble Baroness who has spoken in the debate—was one of several speakers who pointed out that the apparent disappearance of the uniformed policeman from our streets is one of the major concerns of the public and that it has existed for some time.
	I do not believe any more than other noble Lords that the police car with sirens wailing is any substitute in terms of giving comfort, providing deterrence and reassuring the general public. Nor, however, do I think that the clock can be put back. Possibly—I may do him an injustice—the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, may think that it is possible. He certainly placed emphasis on special constables. Assuming that they are unpaid, reliance on them—in London, at any rate—would not seem to be feasible. Therefore, I am attracted, in principle at least, to Part 4 of the Bill, which refers to people, whether they are street wardens, security officers or whoever—all uniformed, as I understand it—who would provide that measure of reassurance to the public that, to the regret of noble Lords, has disappeared. Their powers to deal with so-called low-level crime and anti-social behaviour would be a valuable supplement—I emphasise "supplement"—to the powers of the police.
	My only concerns about Part 4 are Committee matters which can be examined at another time. What does "accreditation" mean? Will it mean something different in 43 different police areas? I follow the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who picked on particular clauses—I think that they were Clauses 33, 34 and 35—and talked of the anxieties about who would be responsible in the event of an injury being caused in some kind of tussle between the support staff—the auxiliaries, as I may conveniently call them—and a member of the public. It seemed to me, before I heard the noble and learned Lord's more detailed points, that Clause 35 relied greatly on the auxiliary's employer to ensure that the auxiliary would be someone of the kind of character, behaviour and personality that would make him suitable to be a member of that force. Much attention must be paid to the accreditation of individuals, especially at the beginning of the new system. The public will be watching, and the police force proper will be watching. Relations between the auxiliaries and the police on one hand and the public on the other are of tremendous importance if Part 4, which I agree with in principle, is to be a success in practice.
	I also welcome the creation of the new independent complaints commission. I welcomed the comments about the new system by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in his excellent speech. Tested against criteria of accessibility, effectiveness and independence, the new commission scores high marks. It is certainly a far cry from the days when the police investigated complaints against the police, with the risk of cover-up—or certainly with the perception of cover-up on the part of the public—with regard to the outcome. I remind your Lordships that, to meet legitimate public concern, those in many other professions—lawyers, accountants and others—have felt that they should introduce complaints systems with at least a lay element that would have greater public acceptance than the systems that they replaced. So there is nothing embarrassing for the police; there is nothing special to single out in relation to the police. Other professions are properly doing similar things.
	It has not been mentioned in the debate, but I am glad that bodies such as citizens advice bureaux, representative bodies and others will be able to pursue complaints apart from individual victims. Of course, there must be safeguards against complaints that are produced for some kind of political or other reason that is not justified, but I like that idea, and I like the innovation that the commission will be able to conduct an investigation. It is described in the Explanatory Notes as a "totally new concept" for serious complaints, those that are likely to concern the public interest.
	On the provisions for the new commission, I should welcome an explanation as to how the new concept of the commission conducting investigations directly will work. Do we envisage having permanent staff? Do we envisage sufficient work to require permanent staff to conduct investigations throughout the year? Sadly, perhaps we do. Where shall we get qualified people? Do we envisage that people will be seconded from the police force in some temporary or permanent way? It will make a lot of difference to the perception of the new commission and of the independence that is enshrined in its title if we know where the investigators will come from.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising the matter of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. I had the privilege of piloting it through the House. It was a Private Member's Bill in the other place, initiated by Mr Richard Shepherd, Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills. It gave useful protection—as it still does—to employees in all kinds of enterprises who blow the whistle on wrongdoing in the place of work and are then dismissed or victimised in some other way.
	The Government said that police officers must be excluded from the Act because technically they are not employees. That is perfectly true. But the relevant Minister—Mr Ian McCartney at that time—said that it was clear the police should be covered by whistle-blowing protection and, as recorded in Commons Hansard on 24th April 1998 at col. 1143, he gave an "absolute commitment" that police officers would be afforded equivalent protection to that in the Act.
	There are some whistle-blowing provisions in the police regulations. But they do not provide equivalent protection to that in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The officer is not given any right of redress. He is merely entitled to bring a so-called "grievance"; a procedure in which, according to no less a body than Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the police have little confidence. According to the Government's White Paper, Policing a New Century, which the Minister has had in front of him during most of the debate, a modern police service requires modern employment terms and conditions. That suggests that the old technical reason for excluding the police from the Public Interest Disclosure Act no longer applies.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, this has been an interesting Second Reading debate, notably because of the contributions of three noble Lords with direct policing experience, further supplemented by the Minister who I understand spent a night shift with the police in London. I had a similar experience, spending a night shift with the police force in Chicago. The most frightening thing was that every arrest was made when guns were produced. It was on that day that I realised what a wonderful police force we have in this country.
	I detected a common concern among most noble Lords, and shall certainly include it in my contribution. The police and policing methods have come under considerable scrutiny over the past few years. For example, no one would have imagined that the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence would result in such a fundamental appraisal of policing methods. To the credit of the police forces, they took on board many of the recommendations and to that extent the Home Office must take credit for the way that it pursued those recommendations.
	Parliament has to date looked at issues affecting the police very much on a piecemeal basis, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. This Bill gives us an opportunity to examine present practices and the improvements that are necessary. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, some contentious issues arise and we shall debate those in Committee.
	I echo the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Bill may not reflect the consultation that has taken place. How can that be possible in the short time between the end of the consultation process and the publication of the Bill? Will it be possible for the Minister to make available in the Library the evidence submitted by the various organisations so that we can see their concerns in relation to the consultation process outcome.
	In Part 1 the Home Secretary asks for new powers regarding police forces and police authorities, and I shall deal with that matter later. I note the Minister's assurance that he values the tripartite relationship. I do not question his intentions. But the effect of his proposals is precisely the opposite. It questions the sound relationship of the tripartite arrangement that has existed so far.
	Part 2 concerns the overhaul of the police complaints system and the establishment of a new independent police complaints commission. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Condon. The police have powers which, if misused, can be oppressive and fundamentally affect the lives of ordinary citizens. It is right that such misuse can be dealt with and we welcome the additional powers.
	It is important also that we scrutinise the powers for the removal, supervision and disciplining of police officers as contained in Part 3. I say that because no one can take comfort from the way in which the Secretary of State exercised his authority in a recent case. The removal of the Chief Constable of Sussex raised some important issues and we want to distinguish clearly the role of the police authority and the part the Secretary of State should play. I do not question the rights or wrongs of the case; but I question the method employed.
	The Home Secretary has power also to reinstate police officers. But the way he exercised his authority in that case broke all the rules of natural justice. He cannot be the judge and the jury at the same time.
	The most fundamental provision in the Bill relates to police powers, police support staff and the establishment of a community safety accreditation scheme. Again that is new and it is right that we should probe in detail the Government's thinking and the police response to it.
	I have always said that we have the best police force in the world. But that does not mean that it could not be better. Equally, there is recognition that the public's expectations are far greater than the police's ability to meet them and deliver the appropriate service to them. We must not forget that 130,000 individuals—that thin blue dividing line—make the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. It is for that reason that we need to examine carefully the impact of the government proposals and their impact on the police generally.
	The question we quite rightly need to pose that arose in the consultation document is whether the Police Reform Bill will actually assist in reducing crime. Will it help to tackle persistent offenders more effectively? What will be its impact on detection and conviction rates? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, is right. The police are not the only agency. The joined-up approach should look at all parts of the justice system if we are to achieve some uniformity in the way that the system operates.
	The question I have repeatedly posed in your Lordships' House is this. Why is it that when the crime rate is dropping as confirmed by the British Crime Survey, the prison population continues to rise? I welcome the announcement of the Home Secretary about the need to reduce over-crowding and the plans he has for weekend prisons. There is at least a recognition that sending people to prison does not work. I welcome that new thinking.
	No one disputes that public safety and the protection of all our citizens must rank high on the Government's agenda. We need to be satisfied that the Bill before us has a balance between crime and its detection, and the need to deal with offenders in a more effective way. If that means tackling bureaucracy in the policing network and more effective use of police in tackling crime, then that is welcome.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his most important report on the Brixton disorders in 1981, identified independence and the consent of the community as an essential element in successful policing methods. A number of noble Lords mentioned those factors. We want to be satisfied that neither has been sacrificed in the Bill before us, nor that they have been diluted so that those factors are eroded.
	We welcome the Home Secretary's duty to produce an annual national policing plan. The questions we must raise are these. Would local consultation in formulating the national plan be part of the Government's strategy? If not, why not? Is the national plan the forerunner for a national police force? That is the indication one gets despite the Government's assurances. Would the independence of the police be sacrificed? Are we slicing away or eroding their independence in operational matters? How else can the Minister explain powers to issue directions? Why does the Secretary of State require powers to issue directions, particularly to chief officers and police authorities? Does this not compromise the independence of our local police forces?
	It would have been helpful if the Minister had indicated why the present methods have not worked—if they have not worked. The Minister has demonstrated an insatiable appetite on the part of the Government to control police functions nationally. I hope that that is not the case. The powers that the Home Secretary is seeking, particularly the power to issue directions, could have serious implications if there is political interference in the performance of police duties. We want categoric assurances that this will not be the case and that the power will be restricted to directions for implementing an annual national policing plan which has been approved by Parliament.
	We must avoid politicising our police service at all costs. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, rightly drew our attention to this matter. Perhaps I may draw an analogy with the miners' strike and the use of police operating nationally at that time which created wounds in our mining communities which have yet to heal.
	I am concerned about the Secretary of State's relationship with police authorities. Prior to the reorganisation of the membership and function of the authorities, much of the discussion at meetings related to point scoring, particularly political point scoring. I know because I was a member of such an authority at that time. The reorganisation and the appointment of independent members altered that situation. Why is it necessary to meddle in the function of such authorities?
	Again, the action of the Secretary of State in by-passing the role of the authority and asking the Chief Constable of Sussex to resign has not helped. Why do we need such powers centrally? What is the justification? If we take away the remaining vestige of independence from police authorities it will make them fairly sterile and will be damaging to the accountability of the force.
	Part 2 deals with complaints and misconduct. This is an area in which we will certainly offer the Minister our support. The current system of handling complaints has flaws. Let me declare my interest. Unlike many Members of your Lordships' House, I was a member of the Police Complaints Authority from 1994 to 1997. It was created in the early 1980s as a result of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the Brixton riots, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and recommendations from the then Police Complaints Board.
	The procedures were ground-breaking at that time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, himself proposed the arrangement whereby investigations into serious complaints would be supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. Police investigating police has never been accepted by a section of the populace, and public perceptions count as much as reality.
	The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was also ground-breaking but it needs updating. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, now part of the Police Act 1966, reformed the police discipline system but did not change the process of investigation. There are specific reasons why we need to reform the system now.
	The current system does not allow for any appeal against a failure by a chief constable to record a complaint against police. If you cannot record a complaint, you cannot get an investigation. Many frustrated complainants write to the Police Complaints Authority, but, while the authority will intercede if appropriate, it has no locus in the case and cannot override the force's decision.
	Special constables and civilians, such as custody gaolers, who have taken over posts formerly held by constables, are outside the current system. The Bill will bring them into the same complaints system.
	The Police Complaints Authority cannot initiate an investigation of its own accord. It has to await a complaint or a voluntary referral by the force. The complaints of people who witness police misconduct also cannot be recorded, although on occasions the force will set up an investigation. Following incidents causing grave public concern, there is particular concern about police officers investigating, albeit under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority.
	The PCA has had tiny resources to undertake a major job. For example, its £4.4 million budget to cover 51 police forces in England and Wales is only about half of that of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, where the total number of police officers is about 10 per cent of that in England and Wales.
	There is no appeal against a misconduct decision taken by the Police Complaints Authority. Judicial reviews are expensive and are only the prerogative of people who are legally aided.
	The restrictions on disclosure of information hindered the present Police Complaints Authority considerably in its first 10 years and damaged public confidence in the police complaints machinery. The name "Police Complaints Authority" leads the great majority of complainants to assume that the independent body is an arm of the police. The system under which the PCA finds itself writing to complainants to tell them the result of an investigation on behalf of the police fuels this misunderstanding.
	It has been a difficult time for the PCA to operate but it has made some very significant progress since the 1980s. I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged the individual contribution of members of the authority. The PCA is much more flexible now. It has handled many cases of miscarriages of justice and around 40 convictions have been quashed as a result of its investigations. Despite receiving criticisms, investigations are much more robust and the complainants and their families are well briefed about their cases.
	We need to commend the authority's work on guidance for pre-inquest disclosure as regards deaths in custody. It has played a significant part in reducing the number of deaths in care and custody from 65 in 1998 to 32 last year. We can add to that the guidance on the police use of batons and CS sprays and the way it has worked with a number of police forces to pioneer restorative justice techniques within the police complaints system. It is to be hoped that none of this will lose its impact when the authority is reorganised.
	I welcome the proposed changes because they will take the system a lot further. The independent police complaints commission will have important new powers, its own investigators and a role in police inspections alongside Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It will clearly be independent of the police service. The new system will also give every incentive to the police service to deal effectively with complaints and to satisfy complainants. If it fails, then the complainant will appeal to the IPCC. The number of appeals in each force will surely become a performance target.
	But much will depend on the financial and administrative support available to the new authority. Can the Minister confirm that the figures which have been given will be available for undertaking complaints work? Can he assure us that adequate provision will be made, not only in terms of finances but in terms of staffing requirements, to undertake that task?
	The final approach in terms of the complaints machinery must surely be that the Police Complaints Authority in the last financial year accepted 586 cases for supervised investigation and dealt with more than 4,000 cases for misconduct review, resulting in more than 1,000 disciplinary outcomes. That is a commendable record. It is the basis on which the new police complaints commission will be judged.
	We have serious concerns about Part 3. Will the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers weaken the local accountability? It is a draconian measure to take a power to direct a police authority to suspend a chief constable of a force, notwithstanding that the police authority does not judge this necessary to maintain local confidence in the force. There is a serious issue in that the impression is given that the Secretary of State could ignore the voice of the local community and make police authorities the poodles of central government.
	Where is local accountability? Where is the independence of police authorities? Where is community involvement? What would the Secretary of State do if the police authority refused to obey his diktat? The Bill smacks of central control, whichever way we look at it.
	We shall challenge the Government with appropriate amendments at the Committee stage. We must never sacrifice the discretion that is available to meet local needs. The Government need to establish a clear distinction between broad operational policy and the operation and control of the chief officer.
	I now turn to police powers. There is a need to tread carefully. It is right that functions that can usefully be undertaken by others would relieve officers to concentrate on fighting crime. I commend the initiative taken by Sir John Stevens and the Metropolitan Police Service. That force is well ahead in recognising the deployment of civilians who can be suitably skilled and trained. I make a plea to the Minister. Would it not be wise to monitor how this works in the Met before establishing similar provisions in other forces?
	We need to exercise great care in case the logical outcome of such a scheme lends itself to a privatised police force. Would the public have the same confidence in private security firms as they have in our police? It is right to examine police and policing issues and their relevance at present. We shall certainly be constructive in our response to the Bill. The Home Office should take note that any attempt to impose central control will meet stiff resistance from these Benches.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, it is pleasure, not for the first time, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. This has been a good debate and I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in thanking the Minister for such a good start to it in his speech.
	At this stage of the debate, I shall confine my remarks to Parts 1 and 4 of the Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred, and about which we have some reservations. There is, of course, universal agreement to augment numbers in the police forces. Many references have been made to the New York Police Department. Such policing would be a desirable, if unrealistic, option—certainly to that degree. The choice therefore lies between an increase in regular forces, special constables or auxiliaries.
	We are aware of the considerable strain imposed on police forces, particularly in the Met, after 11th September and the upsurge in street crime that followed. We are aware of the large increase in protection duties and cordon duties, which are an inefficient way of employing highly trained police officers. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, gave us a particularly and an expectedly well informed background to the issue. His colleague, the deputy commissioner, Mr Ian Blair, in some helpful briefings to all parties, said that the one reaction of police officers to this sort of duty is boredom. Boredom is not good for morale.
	We are aware that from the Met's point of view, there was a need to pre-empt the proliferation of local police forces which, with some sense of drama, has been compared to the state of London policing before the creation of the Metropolitan Police 170 years ago. The Government's proposal to recruit various grades of auxiliary is one way of solving the problem. My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to the thin end of the wedge, which was again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. We are in new territory and we must be in no doubt about that.
	Considerable work is required to improve a scheme that currently has many practical drawbacks. The power of detention for 30 minutes invites all sorts of comments. One is reminded of the fiasco of the cashpoint and asylum seekers 18 months ago. The security industry does not have a good public profile. There have been some well publicised cases of staff being involved in inside jobs. Extremely careful vetting will be required and much thought needs to be given to the presentation and to the uniform of auxiliaries. We welcome the Government's intention to employ a large number of directly employed staff. We need look no further than the Metropolitan Police security staff in the Palace of Westminster to see a very fine example.
	Then there are the restricted powers that the auxiliaries will be given. Considerable attention will be given to what is termed human resource risk management. There will be many areas in which it will not be possible to put auxiliaries and where back-up will be required from the regular forces. Many of us are concerned about the aspect of dual responsibility of the accredited auxiliaries. That needs careful debate in Committee. However, the concept of accreditation in general is to be welcomed.
	I am sure that your Lordships will be disappointed by the opposition to the scheme by the Police Federation. That was couched in a courteous and well argued letter, but we are particularly depressed by the account of the publicity put out by the federation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred. In the end, our strong preference on these Benches is for strengthening the effectiveness of the Special Constabulary. My noble friend Lord Waddington said that this will need to be accompanied by financial incentives. That was further fleshed out by my noble friend Lord Kimball, in terms of the bounty to which reference has already been made.
	The advantages are obvious. Properly equipped, the Special Constabulary would be a visible and recognisable presence, with public respect borne of many years. Let us consider the Metropolitan area where recruiting is a problem and where there is a drain of Specials into the regular force, which should be welcomed in many ways. However, that does not address our present purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out that Specials are a valuable source of ethnic recruitment.
	Not for the first time in this debate, I draw your Lordships' attention to the disparity between the circumstances, both current and historic, between the Met and other forces in the country. In certain other forces, the recruitment of Specials is much more healthy, and it may be that in those forces the reliance on auxiliaries will be less pressing. Our position is clear. Our preference is for special constables with the emphasis on auxiliaries as a second best option.
	I turn to Part 1 about which many of your Lordships have expressed considerable concern. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred to the community policing of forces outside London and many of your Lordships have drawn attention to the precious concept of the tripartite agreement which has stood the test of time so well. I am pleased that an enthusiast such as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is involved in the tripartite club.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made a particularly moving statement on the role of the chief constables. On the requirements of the local plan, I do not want to be frivolous, but requiring the police authority to show its essay to teacher sticks in the gullet, although I have to acknowledge the Minister's undertaking to amend the Bill so that the police will be involved. It is so important to avoid the charge that one size fits all, to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred.
	The character of policing is different in different forces outside London. The Bill is centralising and several noble Lords have said that it puts us half way towards a national police force.
	We are assured that the powers for the dismissal of chief constables are little greater than those in the 1986 Act. We shall need to address that carefully at subsequent stages. It has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
	From this side of the House, we welcome the general thrust of the Bill, but we shall press helpful but incisive amendments.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, like all Ministers in this situation, I arrived in the Chamber this afternoon with a prepared speech for Second Reading—because it is my responsibility to put the general thrust of the Bill on the table—and with about 12 pages of speaking notes for winding up, which is also par for the course. I have not read them. With all due respect to my excellent team in the Box, I have only skimmed over two or three of the notes that have been passed to me, but I have made my own notes on every speech, which I shall use to respond.
	I am not going to make policy on the hoof and I shall be really brief. There have been 21 speeches and I do not propose to spend a minute on each, because there is other business to be dealt with.
	Over the past few hours we have had a good look at the issues that your Lordships will want to raise in Committee. There have been some common themes, including centralisation and the role of the Specials, which will have to be addressed. The juxtaposition of the Specials and what we are planning is not dealt with on the face of the Bill. There is clearly some work to be done there. We shall need responses to the amendments that your Lordships will table.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, kicked off with a point—I shall not say that it was a cheap point—about the juxtaposition of the closing date for consultation on the White Paper and the publication of the Bill. At the risk of repeating myself—I have dealt with the issue in an intervention—the White Paper has to be looked at as a totality. The Bill is not specifically the result of the White Paper. Many of the ideas in the White Paper on the reform of policing do not require legislation and are proceeding. I referred to the Police Standards Unit earlier.
	The consultation on the White Paper closed in January and a few days later we published the Bill, but that does not mean that we have ignored or not taken account of the comments made on the White Paper. To the best of my knowledge, we have not placed the consultation responses in the Library. It is the norm these days to tell everyone who responds that their comments will be published unless they have a particular reason for not wanting them published. We would normally place those responses in the Library. I shall be quite upset if they are not there before we start the Committee stage, because your Lordships are entitled to see the comments of those who have responded to the White Paper, particularly on the issues that are relevant to the Bill. Obviously, there are other parts of the White Paper that are not relevant to the Bill. We are talking about policing in total, not about isolated parts. We have not pulled a fast one and ignored the results of the consultation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about too many powers being given to the Home Secretary. I made a note that basically he did not like Part 4. He asked for the evidence. In Committee we shall produce evidence to show why Part 4 is drawn as it is, based on what is going on in the country as a whole. I have a sheaf of notes giving examples of warden schemes throughout the country and community-based activities that have had excellent results. The noble Lord also mentioned the Specials, as did many other noble Lords.
	At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Condon, if I had to show Members of the other place how to make a case in detail in 10 minutes flat, I should tell them to read his speech. I made an extensive list of points during the noble Lord's 10 minutes. I found his contribution extremely helpful and I know that the officials who are advising me on the Bill will also have taken account of his speech. He gave a broad welcome to the Bill, as he did to the White Paper last year. He pointed out, quite fairly, that the tripartite system has stood the test of time, but that the balance of power is now shifting towards the Home Secretary. I should be a fraud if I denied that. We have to make sure that it does not go too far and that Parliament is comfortable with that in the final Act.
	The noble Lord also said that community support officers should be given a fair chance. I shall not repeat his points, which others also made, about the role being an entry point to the service. That point was also made by Mr Blair at the recent briefings given to Members of the House—Mr Blair of the Met, that is. He also spoke about what happened on the streets of London in the weeks before December in respect of anti-terrorism activities and about the effects on the outer boroughs. Trained, quality police officers were getting bored. There was a key job to be done, but did it necessarily need to be done by police officers? Clearly, there is another way of doing it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made an important point about the effects of the tripartite spirit, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The noble Lord also pointed out that community support officers are important and do not represent policing on the cheap. I do not accept the criticism that some have made about that. They are not intended to be policing on the cheap. One or two noble Lords have cautioned the Government to make sure that we do not fall into that trap. That is not our intention. I was grateful for the noble Lord's support on that.
	The noble Lord also referred to the considerable improvements in the complaints system. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, pointed out that there is a benefit to police officers in the new complaints system. That is very important. It is there for the public, but the proposed complaints system will also benefit police officers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gave a robust analysis of where we had got it all wrong. He was not supportive of Part 4. Given his extensive experience, no doubt we shall have some interesting debates in Committee. I am not complaining about that. It would be useful to have the figures that he requested for the various police authorities. If they can be produced, I shall make sure that they are made available to noble Lords before Committee stage.
	My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester understandably concentrated on the policing of road traffic issues. He pointed out that people in this country are more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident than murdered. However, we still have not got to grips with the fear of crime. All the surveys show that overall crime is coming down—although I realise that the situation varies according to area—but the fear of crime is still much too high. We have a problem there.
	The noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made a point about escorts of loads. I have extensive notes about escorts of people, but escorts of loads should certainly be looked at as well. I cannot speak for the diary of my colleague John Denham, but I shall do everything that I can to ensure that the noble Earl has a meeting with him before Committee stage, if only to avoid another speech and so that he can get the answers that will make him a happy Peer. He also made a point about the Specials that has been made by others. We shall return to it in some detail.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made some telling points about the partnership between the police and local communities and about the careful balance of power that we have to consider between the police authorities, local communities, the chief constables and the Home Secretary. He was supportive in the main of community support officers and thought that it was good use of a law-enforcing presence to give confidence to the public. That reassurance patrolling is very important.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, made a central point at the very beginning of his speech. He said that we have a citizens' police service in this country. We want to keep that. I believe he considered that the balance of power was right. It is true that we need to look at it. He raised the question of the role of the Specials. I shall have some questions to answer at Committee stage about the accreditation aspect of the extended police family. He gave some examples. I have read paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. I believe that I understand it, but by Committee stage I guarantee that I shall have a really good explanation for it. If there is another way of drafting the matter, I am sure that we shall look at it. The noble and learned Lord picked up an interesting paragraph in the schedule. I believe that he was also broadly supportive of the role of community support officers as an extension of the police service, but not as a substitute.
	My noble friend Lord Mackenzie referred to complaints inquiries and what has happened as regards Detective Superintendent Mallon. I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is frankly scandalous if inquiries relating to disciplinary and other matters, whether in the health service, local government or the police, take four years. When matters drag on in that fashion, that is below the accepted standards of conduct in public life and in public administration in this country. There is a fault in the system.
	My noble friend was very supportive of the community support officers and uniformed officers on the streets. That is very important. It is also reassuring. It is true that powers are needed by the police family. We shall need to be very careful about the way in which these matters are dealt with. He also asked about community support officers having discretion in the same manner as police officers. They will have that discretion. They will be expected to use their powers and their common sense in the same way as police officers. We shall go into that in greater detail in Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised an issue to which I shall have to return at a later date. My noble friend Lord Borrie made the same point about whistle-blowing. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, very kindly gave a copper-bottomed reference to a passage in Hansard and one of my ministerial colleagues. We shall have to make sure that we deliver on what was said because, as I have discovered, what is said by Ministers at the Dispatch Box is supposed to be carried into policy. It does work! I am the living proof. I know that one can change policy at the Dispatch Box, but one has to be careful how one goes about it. The subject of whistle-blowing is very important because of issues relating to the police, employment and human rights legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made the point that he did not like Part 1 of the Bill. He referred to the anti-terrorism Bill. I have left that alone. We are trying to implement the Act. We still have things to do and we need to return to the matter. The legislation was not gutted. We believe that we achieved 98 per cent of what we wanted. But I do not want to start a row about that.
	The noble Lord said that we need more police. I made the point that we have record numbers of policemen. By the spring of 2003, on the basis of recruits now going through the system, we reckon that we shall have 130,000 officers. We are achieving that figure at the same time as having record numbers of police in order to provide a better uniformed presence on the streets. However, I accept that because of last year's effort, the Diary of a Police Officer, it is quite clear that, through bureaucracy and other factors, officers spend too much time in police stations. It is all very well having more and more police, but it is no good if more and more of their time is spent in police stations. This Bill tries to overcome some of those difficulties.
	This is not a criticism of noble Baronesses in this House, but the only female Member of the House to participate in the debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I was very sorry to learn of her and her husband's difficulties last summer in the streets of London. It is very distressing when such matters occur to oneself or to one's own family. Not many of us are untouched by such circumstances, but I do not want to set another debate going as I wind up.
	The noble Baroness raised the question of ID cards. Although I have been sitting in the Chamber all day, I believe that I know what is happening in government. A White Paper is due, I hope, this week on the question of nationality, citizenship and asylum. It is a substantive document in which there are a few paragraphs relating to entitlement cards. The Home Secretary answered a question in the other place today on the subject. I repeat the point that, whatever happens, we are not in the business of even contemplating introducing any card the carrying of which is a requirement and where it is an offence not to have it in one's possession. I make that absolutely clear. That is exactly the same as the provision we have made as regards the asylum application registration card which began to be issued last week. It is rather like the driving licence. One is required to have it available and if it is not, the holder has a week in which to produce it at a police station. There will be no stop-and-search power. Whatever the result of any consultation, I make that absolutely clear.
	My noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, with his experience of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, was very supportive. He referred to a lack of response on some issues when he was a constituency Member of Parliament. I thought that that was very unkind of him because the place he referred to was for five years part of his responsibility, but for 20 years it was mine. That was in Kingstanding. Therefore, I know that what he said was true. The complaint was always that police officers were not available to deal with balls being kicked against the ends of houses and the bikes all over the place. These matters are serious to the individuals affected and almost threaten mental health. Although it is not like robbing a bank, such things are a serious problem.
	My noble friend also referred to Sir Edward Crew, the Chief Constable of the West Midlands. I do not want to refer to his letter in The Times or the front page of the Birmingham Post of today's date. However, I shall share with the House a passage from an article in the Birmingham News of 4th January. We have some warden schemes in the city of Birmingham. It is worth while putting on the record a quotation from that newspaper which states:
	"'Community wardens are there to help with all aspects of security and quality of life', said PC Derek Smail from the Attwood Green scheme, which started in April last year. 'They are not a substitute for the police—they are the eyes and ears of the community. I understand where the chief constable is coming from, but the very presence of wardens in their uniforms does dissuade crime and wrongdoing'".
	I hope that I am not causing that police constable any problems. However, that PC is on the front line.
	I am not saying that Sir Edward is not on the front line—he is a quality chief constable—but I hope that the West Midlands will soon be able to take advantage of the provisions. Nevertheless, if the chief constable decides not to take advantage of them, we shall not force him to do so. It is his decision. We shall not interfere if chief constables decide not to take up community support officers or accreditation. It is entirely a matter for them.
	My noble friend Lord Corbett also very eloquently put the boot into the Police Federation magazine editorial, a copy of which I happen to have in my little box for today's debate. I shall not get into any of those issues now—as I said, the polling stations open tomorrow—but I think that my noble friend was absolutely fair in the way in which he analysed that editorial, "The moment of truth". It is from an organisation that was party to the agreements made with the official side.
	I confirm to my noble friend that, once the legislation is passed, we shall move with all speed to enable socially responsible housing associations and landlords to obtain anti-social behaviour orders. The orders will considerably assist those parties, as I hope I made clear in my opening remarks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned Home Office U-turns. Although I am not exactly sure what he was referring to, I do not want to encourage him to get up and explain. I am not saying that we have never reviewed or changed policies according to the circumstances—we have not set the position in concrete, but are trying to be realistic—but I was not sure whether the noble Lord was referring to police or other matters.
	The noble Lord made a valuable point on the ethnicity make-up in the Specials and drew an analogy between them and the Regular Army. Although it is important to have eyes and ears on the street, as he said, we have to be clear about the powers that we provide. I very much hope that, in that part of the Bill, we shall be judged according to his analysis of interference and intervention. I shall take his analysis as a theme in trying to ensure that we properly analyse each of our proposals.
	Early this morning, I noticed that my officials had kindly put beside the name of each speaker in this debate a note on what he or she had done previously or does now. In my ignorance of the House, I was unaware that the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, is a serving police officer. Although I have not yet been completely bought over, I shall use that fact when defending this House. Unlike some noble Lords who spoke in our debate today, no one who will speak to the Bill in the other place has served as a police officer or as a chief officer of police or is a serving police officer. Some of our speakers have come from the front line and some will go back to it tomorrow. There is no question but that that benefits our deliberations. It is not for me to argue about how people arrive in this place—we have the Parliament that we have—but the noble Earl's speech has been an absolute benefit and plus.
	As I said, I welcome the noble Earl's comments, and I recognise that there is a Met perspective on community support officers. He also drew an analogy with nurses, who are now performing tasks formerly performed by doctors. Roles in society are changing and the police have to make the same types of changes. The mentality has to change. The noble Earl's final point, on the accountability, control and training of civilian police staff, was crucial. The proposals will not work without those elements. He also reiterated the point about facts being different from public perception, which takes us back to the point about the fear of crime. We have to tackle that fear. I think that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl for his contribution.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, strongly made the point on the Specials and the possibility of a bounty. As I said, we shall have seriously to examine that issue during our consideration of the Bill.
	I cannot answer all the questions asked with some care by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. However, he asked about the Home Secretary's last-resort powers to dismiss by retirement or resignation. As I tried to explain—although only briefly as this is Second Reading—the Home Secretary already has certain powers in relation to chief officers. However, not only do those powers relate purely to retirement, they are cumbersome. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not the first Minister to come up against those facts. Although the issue will have to be addressed, I cannot delineate all the relevant circumstances now. Although the powers would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, one noble Lord—I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—reminded us of events in Derbyshire. However, we can discuss that issue in Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, also said that it takes far too long to deal with complaints, and I accept that point. As I can explain in Committee, investigating and detention officers will have search powers. However, they will be qualified and trained people who are employees of the chief constable. Investigating, detention, escort and community support officers will be employees of the chief constable of the relevant police service. They will be subject to the same complaints procedure and other procedures as other employees. It would be unusual for chief constables not to report on the operation of Part 4. I do not think that that is something we would have to require them to do. I should be astonished if those chief constables who think that it is a great success did not laud it and if those who did not welcome it in the first place and find that it does not work out did not fail to report that. I believe that we shall receive reports from chief constables.
	I touched on the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, earlier and therefore I shall not repeat myself. My noble friend Lord Borrie also mentioned the important matter of the complaints procedure and the need for greater public acceptance of it. I have some figures on that. There are about 30,000 complaints a year divided into different categories. There will be time to discuss the details at a later stage. Far greater resources are being allocated to the complaints procedure. The new commission will be able to employ the people it chooses to carry out investigations. They could be serving officers, ex-officers or non-police officers. It will not be a case of the police investigating the police. That is the central point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, shared with us his experience as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. I am grateful that he accepted my earlier assurance that I did not seek to criticise that body. However, I do not accept his comments as regards what happened in the Sussex police force. That incident arose just after I arrived at the Home Office. It was a difficult situation which, frankly, given its history, had to be dealt with. It could not be allowed to fester.
	We do not intend to behave as a dictatorship. We intend to work in partnership. As I said earlier, as far as the public are concerned the Home Secretary is the person who will have to stand at the Dispatch Box and be accountable for the police although he does not have operational powers over them. That is an interesting concept and one we support and applaud. However, the Home Secretary wants to have some levers to raise standards. That is not to say that all 43 forces will operate in exactly the same way, but the idea of having some plans and a road map, as it were, is a good one.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, mentioned Parts 1 and 4. I suspect that those parts will comprise much of our discussion. Part 2 is important but I believe that Parts 1, 3 and 4 will figure largely in our debates in Committee. That is not to say that noble Lords have ignored other parts of the Bill which are absolutely crucial. I am extremely grateful for the contributions that have been made. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Teacher Training

Baroness Walmsley: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they propose to take to reduce wastage rates among students in initial teacher training and newly qualified teachers.
	My Lords, when filling a bucket it is usually good practice to plug the holes in the bottom; otherwise, you will get very wet feet. That applies particularly when there is a water shortage. Unfortunately, for the past few years the Government have had very wet feet indeed and precious water has seeped away. Sadly, the Government have also had a large bill for the training of teachers from whom our schools have received very little or no service because trained teachers have been falling through the holes in the bucket.
	In his last annual report for Ofsted published today the chief inspector Mike Tomlinson, while complimenting teachers on rising standards, raises concerns about the Government's failure to recruit and retain enough teachers, especially in specialist subjects. I am sure that the Minister will catalogue all the Government are doing, but from the evidence of their own chief inspector it is clearly not enough. The main reasons he gives are threefold: workload, discipline problems and the fact that teachers do not feel valued by society. I shall return to those three issues later.
	It is difficult to quantify the wastage of teachers in training and in the early years of service, but let me try. The accepted wisdom is that we lose a third of teachers in their first three years and 40 per cent by the time they reach five years of service. However, that is probably an underestimate. The fact is that the Government do not conduct an exit survey so we do not really know where teachers go when they leave our schools.
	Professor John Howson conducted some research on maths teacher trainees. He assumed the department's own figures for wastage during the course of training, which was 13 per cent at that time. He then found that 20 per cent did not go into teaching after completing the course. Another half had left teaching by the end of their fourth year of service. So, of the cohort that started training, half were lost by the end of year five.
	Drop-out rates from PGCE secondary courses have been increasing, from 13 per cent in 1996–97 to 15 per cent in 1997–98 up to 16 per cent in 1998–99. My honourable friend the Member for Harrogate in another place has asked for more recent figures in a Written Question but has not yet received a reply.
	Sadly, the Government are also failing to fill up the bucket as fast as they would like. The review body report shows that the secondary ITT recruitment target has been revised downwards since 1997–98; and the targets for the past four years have also been missed by between 2,000 and 5,000. Apart from the effect on schools of missing teachers, what is the cost to the country of training early dropouts?
	If one considers the £6,000 training grant, the golden hello that about half the candidates receive and the £4,000 paid to the university for training, they add up to an average of £12,000 per postgraduate student. In 1998–99, some 700 secondary teachers and 580 primary teachers left the profession within their first year. That group alone cost the state more than £1.5 million in wasted initial training.
	Why are the Government so bad at tracking the figures? Even the STRB proposed last month that the Government should review how they collect figures for teachers leaving the profession.
	Why do teachers leave? Many factors are at work and Mike Tomlinson's report lists some of them. But before they get that far, perhaps those who drop out during or on completion of their course realise that teaching is not for them. This suggests a need for better selection processes. Many institutions are so desperate for student teachers that they give only a cursory 20-minute interview. How can one decide whether someone is suitable for a challenging job such as teaching after just 20 minutes? Why is it that for fast-track courses, candidates are subject to a two-day assessment programme? Would it not be better to improve the selection of all students for ITT courses so that there is less initial wastage?
	We on these Benches are pleased to see an increase in the range of routes into teaching, particularly those based in schools. Classroom assistants often take their jobs because they enjoy working with young people and, as long as they are not expected to replace qualified teachers, assistants provide a valuable resource. As they already work in classrooms, they have no illusions about the demands of the job. Those who go on to train do so with their eyes open and may be less likely to fall by the wayside than graduates who have not seen the inside of a classroom since they were at school.
	The same applies to trainees on the school-based graduate teacher programme. It would be interesting to know whether they show a better retention rate than other candidates because their expectations are realistic.
	Perhaps student debt is a reason for newly qualified teachers never entering the profession and going elsewhere for a job. The concerns felt by Members on these Benches about graduate debt are well known to the Minister. We welcome proposals to pay off student loans for recruits to specialist subjects, but the £6,000 training grant has not been increased even by inflation since its introduction two years ago—and is little enough. Even the golden hellos paid to teachers of shortage subjects do not match up to the training salaries offered by big banks and retail trainee management schemes. Even the Armed Forces manage to do better. University cadets are paid £10,000 a year as undergraduates.
	All trainee teachers deserve a decent standard of living. We are seeing a more and more complex web of bonuses, golden hellos, training bursaries and so on. What is needed is a comprehensive review of recruitment and retention initiatives, together with an evaluation of their effectiveness.
	As the Minister knows, the modest and affordable Liberal Democrat policy of providing a full training salary of just over £15,000 per year, plus national insurance and pension contributions, would help all new graduates in ITT start to address their burden of debt and have enough on which to live. But the main pay gap does not occur at the beginning of a teacher's career. The average starting salary for a graduate with a 2.1 degree outside London is only about £400 per year less than the average graduate starting salary. The gap, however, soon widens between young teachers and other professionals. After 10 years, it is often very wide. Although the recent pay settlement recommended that the number of years after which a teacher can access the upper pay scale be reduced from seven to five years, the poor potential earnings of graduates in teaching will already have become apparent to a teacher three or four years into his or her career—and that is when they leave.
	Many leaving teachers cite the workload and the amount of paperwork. The Government are currently conducting a review of workload and I look forward to the publication of those findings in April. In Scotland, the McCrone agreement has defined much more clearly the contract between teachers and their employers, and has led to a better understanding of what is expected. In conducting the review leading up to the agreement, the Scottish executive was able to identify many of the issues leading to the poor state of teacher morale in Scotland and to implement contractual changes to address them.
	It is only six months since the implementation of McCrone, so one cannot say whether this new agreement will really improve teacher retention but initial soundings are good. I hope that the Government's review for England and Wales comes forward with a contract that allows adequate time for extra-curricular activities. These enrich teachers as well as students and give opportunities for developing positive relationships that can only assist with discipline and achievement in the classroom. In the meantime, perhaps I may urge the DfES to continue to monitor the effect on workload and paperwork every time that it brings forward a new initiative, however good.
	Much of the crisis of morale in the profession stems from the large amount of reporting back that teachers have to undertake. It all adds up to an impression that teachers are constantly having to justify what they are doing and prove that it is of good quality. They are not trusted. Not only are our children the most measured and examined in the whole of the western developed world, but our teachers are the most scrutinised and inspected. But in the Education Bill passing through another place this very day, the Secretary of State is planning to give herself draconian powers, greater than any of her predecessors. Why will this Government not let go and allow the teaching profession to teach without this constant centralisation of control? No wonder teachers do not feel valued. Thanking them is not enough. They need to be trusted as professionals to get on with the job.
	Of course, professionals are expected constantly to hone their skills and keep up to date with developments in their field. Most teachers welcome the opportunity to undertake continuous professional development, but the quality of courses is variable. Schools differ in the way that they provide access to them, and there is no clear entitlement. We need a coherent structure of additional qualifications which will lead a young teacher up the ladder to higher status and the money that should go with it.
	I hope that the implementation by the Government of a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy of having a general teaching council to represent the professional standards of teachers and access to the profession will lead in the medium term to a more structured approach to professional development that will be motivating, lead to better retention and better performance in the classroom and add to the status of teachers in society. In the meantime, today's Ofsted report has identified the fact that only a minority of schools establish clear targets for development activities and monitor whether these have been achieved. Perhaps the way in which schools support and develop new teachers should be one of the criteria on which a head teacher is judged.
	Teachers enter the profession with a commitment to young people and a desire to do a good job. It is distressing, therefore, to see them ground down by the burden of the expectations of society. Sometimes they do not feel sufficiently supported, especially when it comes to discipline problems. It was not helpful for the Government just to set targets for reducing the number of pupils excluded from schools. It is very welcome that the number of learning support units and of learning mentors is to be increased. That is a very important factor in teacher retention. Graduates will continue to avoid the teaching profession if they do not feel that they will be well trained and supported when dealing with the most difficult discipline problems.
	Perhaps we should not expect our schools to put right everything that is wrong with our society; or, if we do, we should be realistic about the support needed. Not only do we expect teachers to deliver their subjects and teach children how to think, make decisions and conduct research, but we also expect them to deliver citizenship, health education and leisure activities and to deal with the results of deprivation and social exclusion. It is a tall order.
	Teachers are a precious resource—too precious to waste. It costs a lot to recruit and train them, and much of that money is currently wasted. The Education Bill passing through another place today has no answers. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how she plans to plug the holes in the bucket. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I begin by thanking Members of this House for the warmth of the welcome that I have received since my introduction last November. I am delighted to be able to speak to this Unstarred Question, which appears in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Not only is education close to my heart and my experience, but it is a particular pleasure to be able to speak to a Question moved by a resident of the Diocese of Chester.
	Education, education, education. That half sums up my life. Apart from one year in my early 20s, I was in full-time education as a student from the age of five—or perhaps four-and-a-half—until I was 30. "No wonder they made him a bishop", you may think. The problem, actually, was a Damascus Road experience—it was in fact in Derbyshire just off the A6—following a degree in chemistry, that took me back to university to read theology, to study for a doctorate and then to theological college prior to ordination. Subsequently, I spent eight years experiencing higher education from the perspective of a teacher.
	As my family has moved around the country with me, I estimate that as a governor or parent, I have had direct involvement in around a dozen schools in the maintained sector and nearly half a dozen in the private sector. For the past five years, I have chaired the governing body of Chester College of Higher Education—a church college of higher education that was originally founded in 1839 by William Gladstone, in conjunction with the Church of England. The original vision of the college was indeed to provide qualified teachers for the church-sponsored schools, which were in the vanguard of the provision of universal education in our country. The college has expanded and diversified to a full-time equivalent student body in excess of 5,000, but it has retained a firm commitment to its founder's vision of training teachers. That has not always been easy in recent years, as policies connected to the training and professional development of teachers have lurched and staggered from one initiative to another.
	Throughout my years as a teacher and governor—and parent—I have witnessed the underlying problems in education in this country, which lie behind the unacceptable statistics for wastage of student qualified teachers. I will gladly acknowledge that there are now real signs of progress and emergence from the darkest days. But how are things to be taken forward in such a way as to reduce the figures for wastage rates among teachers both in training and in their first post? Let me briefly suggest three dimensions of the necessary strategy.
	First, to echo some comments made by the noble Baroness, we need to establish a greater sense of stability throughout the educational world. Over the past 15 years—since the two education Acts of 1986—there has been a seemingly relentless series of changes, reviews and initiatives. I do not doubt the benefits that are flowing from, for example, parent governors, the local management of schools, Ofsted inspections and the national curriculum. But to those in the profession, it has often felt like a slow torture of endless bureaucratic demands and adjustments. The ink has only just dried on one questionnaire when the next one thuds on to the doormat—or so it has felt. So far as possible, in schools and higher education alike, we need to maintain an atmosphere of stability, which will breed confidence and a sense of community, which are so vital to any institution.
	Sometimes in life a shake-up is required, but that should not become a constant merry-go-round, with all the attendant extra work that comes with it. Good gardeners learn to leave well alone and to let nature do its work, rather than constantly digging up the plant to see how well it is growing. Let the teachers teach!
	Secondly, we need to provide the necessary resources for schools and teachers alike; and, if I may, I would add universities at this point. A good start has been made in that direction in recent years, and I believe that it is essential that we do not allow the teaching profession to fall back in the comparative league tables for remuneration. In the increasingly meritocratic world in which we live, there may yet be a further need selectively to reward the best, and perhaps also those teaching in areas of greatest need. The figures for people leaving the profession will partly reflect the greater rewards that are available elsewhere, especially for those who are qualified in certain subject areas.
	Thirdly—I wish to lay particular emphasis on this as I believe that it undergirds everything that we should say—the educational provision for our children must be set in the wider framework of society. If poor material rewards in teaching have influenced wastage rates, perhaps a general undervaluing of teachers has played a greater part. Noble Lords would expect me to say something here about the contribution which church schools have made and can continue to make.
	Why is it that church schools have consistently been rated so highly by parents, including those who have little or no religious affiliation themselves, by the inspectorate and also by the results that they achieve? I spend a good deal of my time in schools, especially, but not only, in the 120 or so church schools in the Diocese of Chester. In my view, they provide an effective educational environment by providing just that: an environment—an overall sense of purpose, belonging and community.
	Education at all levels is essentially a community enterprise. That is why a degree of stability is so important as a background and basis for whatever changes need to come to pass. Happy pupils and happy staff achieve results, and happy schools will tend to retain their staff. Schools with a strong sense of community will, by their very ethos and atmosphere, tend to maintain good discipline and a certain restraint upon difficult and disruptive pupils. As someone who regularly takes school assemblies, which is a challenge—perhaps a little like spending the night shift with the police, as we heard in our previous debate; it is certainly a little like Daniel in the lion's den, except he only went in once—one quickly senses what a school is like. If kids are going to misbehave, they will do so when there is safety in numbers. The atmosphere in a school affects the discipline in many, many ways.
	The Anglican church schools that I know—both those in my diocese and elsewhere—do not in any sense seek to indoctrinate or to be exclusive. Quite to the contrary, they serve the communities in which they are set, just as the church schools did when they set out in the 19th century. But they do so, above all, by providing communities of teachers and children who are committed to learning, exploration and mutual support. They are communities in which wisdom and a certain philosophy for living are prized, alongside the transmission of information and knowledge. Indeed, the transmission of information and knowledge can take its proper place only if it is set in that overarching sense of the whole purpose of life and the wisdom of living. I believe that that attention to the broader moral and spiritual context of education in all schools will play a crucial role in retaining teachers in the profession.
	I believe that there are real signs of progress and hope in our schools, as indicated in the Statement earlier today from the noble Baroness the Minister. We now need to build upon the foundations which have been relaid amid the turmoil of recent years by keeping high on the agenda stability, adequate resources and, above all, the confidence of community life in our schools.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I cannot rival him in experience of education but I can understand and respect what he said. It is fitting that he should have chosen the subject of education when the Church of England has had such a distinctive, and distinguished, record in education. It is one in which the Church has recognised that its future in education depends upon the continuing availability and retention of teachers. Therefore, as I see it, teachers are central to the thinking and well-being of the Church. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will join in many future debates on education.
	Perhaps I may respond to the specifics of the debate. In his report, Mike Tomlinson, after his recognition of achievement, sounded the low notes of concern about recruitment. To my knowledge, he has kept that concern very much in mind for the past year.
	We shall be confused by the figures. I shall quote three, which I hope to get right. There are three elements to the wastage. The first is the 15 per cent who do not complete the course. I do not believe that we should be particularly concerned about that, because, I am reliably informed, the wastage rate in this area is below the average for other courses in higher education. However, of those who complete the course, 20 per cent do not appear in the classrooms. There is also wastage of about 8 per cent a year in the early years. I shall concentrate on the last two figures.
	This morning I was passing a school in the East End of London and, without any prior notice, I called in to speak to the head teacher. I said, "There is a debate in the House of Lords today. What shall I tell them?" My schoolmaster used to say that I have the cheek of 10. After persuading her not to lecture me on pay, she said, "Yes, at the top of my list I would put respect, recognition and appreciation". I thought: "You are so right".
	In a sense, a teacher is a performer; like an actor, or a footballer on the field, he or she stands before a class. If one feels that one is appreciated, one performs well. If one is booed, one does not play a good game. In that professional sense it matters. It is also relevant to retention.
	The youngsters who are training as teachers and who have reached the end of their courses, during which they have gone into schools and into the staff room, will have heard the staff saying, "The work load is impossible, and the pay". That must be an important point. In relation to retention it is important that teachers feel valued.
	A teacher who was on supply in a tough area of Kent once wrote to me saying, "At the end of the day I sit in my car and scream my frustration". One can imagine an exasperated teacher slapping a student, and that would finish his career. It would make the headlines. But the thousands of kindnesses beyond the call of duty that teachers offer every day go unnoticed and unrecognised. We must be much better at saying "Thank you" to teachers. That is my first point.
	My second point relates to caring for them after they have passed out, as it were. I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who unfortunately and regretfully cannot be present because he has another engagement. He mentioned the possibility that, through the good offices of the teacher training agencies, and perhaps a few shillings, the colleges of higher education and the universities that engage in the development of teachers, may have a shepherding role, a reference back role, during the early years. I know how much new head teachers value coming together and discussing their experiences, learning from and receiving reassurance from each other.
	Another point that was mentioned to me at the school I visited this morning was the flow of paper. The head teacher said, "Yes, the flow of paper has come down, but the e-mails haven't half gone up". Last week I spoke to another teacher who also raised the point about the flow of paper.
	In part, that is a function of desirable change. When I read individual proposals, usually I say, "Yes, why did they not do that last week?". On the other hand, I say this to the Government, and, if the Prime Minister reads House of Lords' Hansard, to him too. In top level management—the Prime Minister is in top level management, although a politician's trade is not essentially management—the hardest thing to learn in seeking to manage a large organisation such as education—as I say, this is the hardest thing to learn and, having learnt it, to discharge—one must not continue to address and provide solutions to every problem. One must say, "I shall live with some of them. I must recognise that in this vast system, if I am going to get change, I must go for a few things and stay with them." Otherwise the troops get initiative fatigue and one does not get the benefits from it.
	We must recognise too that we cannot be continually asking the Government, "Please do this. Please do that". We must moderate the demands so that teachers can get on with pursuing policies in a consistent way. Then one gets the benefits coming through.
	The second point on workload relates to administration. Good teaching involves administration—for example, good marking, setting targets and keeping records. When I was invited to do a review for the then government in 1993 of what was going on in the national curriculum, I found that the teachers, especially in primary schools where they are immensely conscientious, were maintaining tick lists about performance against every attainment target, and half ticks and quarter ticks. They would go home at weekends with a briefcase to do their ticks. They were over-conscientious about it.
	I ask the Government to bear in mind that in the primary or secondary schools in remote places or big cities with Ofsted hovering in one's mind, we must ease teachers' minds about over-responding to these things; we must moderate.
	In managing issues one basically has two strategies. One is to tell people what to do, in detail, and make sure that they do it. The other technique is to give them clear objectives and hold them to account for achievements. If they are not achieving, then you weigh in. But what we tend to do is to do both. That is exhausting and it deprives people of motivation. I shall not come up with any nostrums because there are none. This is into the detail.
	PricewaterhouseCoopers have given reports and then there is the review body which is due to report in April. Take heed and see if we can moderate our passion for control. John Harvey-Jones in his book Making Things Happen, which I was re-reading over Christmas, said that in every large organisation—no matter—there is a tendency to centralise and take control. We all do it. We must learn not to do it. Hands off.
	Those are the two main points that I wanted to make on workload. Teachers are starting at 7.30 in the morning, leaving at 5.30 and then going home to do more work. A 60-hour week is too heavy. Teachers love teaching. The TES report said that last weekend. That is what I find all the time. But they do not enjoy this great burden of administration. We must find better ways of putting it together.
	In conclusion, I want to quote—and I think it is fitting although rather daring in the presence of two Bishops—from Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, which came to my mind in the light of the praise that came from Mike Tomlinson. I shall see if I can get it right:
	"To everything there is a season . . . A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, a time to dance".
	Now that is a challenge. I shall not ask noble Lords to rise to it. But this is a time when, in the business of recognition we ought to be saying to our teachers, "Thank you". If I can presume to mar the symmetry of party recrimination, as a Cross-Bencher, it is also to say to each of the three political parties who have striven with administrators and teachers to lift performance throughout the land, "You have done your bit too. Thank you".
	So, yes, we have a problem. We shall hear shortly from dear Liza about filling the hole in the bucket. But much has been done. Let us celebrate it for the sake of retaining our teachers.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to take part in this debate, especially in the light of the excellent maiden speech from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chester and the complementary wisdom from another educational guru. If we can observe the sense of teachers joining the dance, we shall definitely have raised their spirits. In a sense, that is what it is all about—recovering the reason why so many teachers went into teaching in the first place.
	I have an interest to declare. Ten years ago I set up an educational charity to try to help schools to develop their extra-curricular activities and community links. In so doing, I discovered that that was the first time that anyone had publicly thanked teachers for the extra activities that they undertook. The small element of recognition that I thought was such a natural part of what we should be doing turned out to have a revolutionary quality and made it possible for our organisation to raise funds and support. That now means that we have 8,000 schools joined with us in a network that is developing those activities.
	With the privilege of going into schools on a regular basis, I have discovered the extraordinary dedication that means that teachers not only give 100 per cent during the day but then find the extra energy to attend early, to start a breakfast club, stay on until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m., just as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, go back at weekends to offer additional support and even run schemes during the holiday. They do it because they love the children and they love teaching. That is the absolutely fundamental foundation on which we build and from which we can take hope for the future.
	It has been an extremely good day for education—not only because the Ofsted report is so positive and gives us some clear pointers for future action but because of the Times Educational Supplement survey last week. I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State ever expected to read a headline that basically said that the teachers lot is a happy one. She must have enjoyed her weekend enormously because of that.
	The profound sense of vocation is really what Mike Tomlinson has been speaking about. He has been rightly praised today for reiterating what we have not said often enough, which is, as he put it,
	"I cannot remember a time when there has been so much good teaching".
	That is a wonderful and powerful phrase. It is gratifying to see the Government taking the advice that new teachers are given in the classroom, which is that we should always give three times more praise than blame. That is now happening because we have an exemplary Secretary of State, an ex-teacher who knows the value of praise and what it can achieve. By her language she is making a major difference to how teachers feel about what it is to be a teacher.
	But this debate is about things that are not going quite right. We must ask why they are going wrong: why does such a high proportion of students in training never make it into the classroom? The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was quite right when he spoke about the infectious apathy or disaffection that many young teachers pick up by osmosis when they enter the classroom for their teaching practice. One of the problems is that even those, such as Alan Smithers, who have explored the reasons for the bad drop-out rates, are not absolutely certain what is happening or why. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we should have more intelligence to track those young people and find out why they do not make it into the classroom: what were their motivations in becoming teachers in the first place; what did they expect to get out of it; and where did it go wrong?
	I should like to concentrate on why 20 per cent of young teachers leave teaching within three years: in what way is teaching proving to be such a disappointment for them? No matter how many extra students have been recruited—it is an impressive record, including in shortage subjects, such as CDT, science, modern foreign languages and religious education for which I am sure that the Minister will give us the figures—there are some incontrovertible realities that cannot be fudged. One is that the demand for teachers in the next few years is bound to increase, because pupil numbers in secondary schools will increase. Secondly, the profession is ageing; we will see a massive exodus in the next 10 years of people who are now in their 40s and 50s. Thirdly, the rate of resignation from the profession is also increasing, and we need to know why.
	It may be that the overall national rate of 1 per cent vacancies is, in fact, a low and quite comforting figure, but it disguises huge regional variations and does not deal with the fact that in every classroom in which there is no mathematics teacher, there is a crisis. If there is a poorly qualified supply teacher, there is another sort of crisis, both for delivering the curriculum and managing the children.
	The Ofsted report today has confirmed what all the other researchers have already told us. The main issue relating to recruitment is not pay: it is workload, closely followed by pupil behaviour, professional autonomy and the value of teachers. It is not rocket science. Recently, a leading educator put it this way:
	"Workload is rising not least because we are expecting our teachers to be clerical officers and administrators for too much of their time . . . We must ensure that every paper-based task required is absolutely necessary and related to standards".
	Those are strong words, but, strangely, they come not from the former chief inspector, but from the present Secretary of State, who understands well what is going on in the classroom. That refutes any charge of complacency.
	If the Government were complacent, they would not be cutting down so dramatically on what can be sent to schools. I know to my cost that even when one is trying to send good news, one cannot get it into the schools. It is not so much the paper or even the e-mail traffic—which, as we all know, has exploded—and it is not the work of teaching for continuous improvement. It is the standardised and immensely detailed written account of what has been done, which seems, sometimes, to provide more evidence that the managers have managed, rather than that teachers have done their job. In that context, it is self-evident that urgent attempts must be made to free-up and enhance the teachers' role. That is where the new Education Bill has a contribution to make. We have seen an expansion in the number of classroom assistants, bursars and other supporting staff and in ICT, but the emphasis must be on supporting—not replacing—the teacher. Teaching is an interpersonal gift; it is not a technical transfer.
	I also welcome the opportunity that the Bill will, in turn, provide to extend the autonomy of successful schools and the creativity of the classroom. Again, that is a major issue. What young teachers value is not the opportunity to turn out a thousand ticks a day; it is the opportunity to turn the classroom into a place in which their imagination can run riot, alongside those of the children.
	Recently, I had the privilege of being able to fund a small project that took classroom teachers out of the classroom and into performing arts organisations for a day at a time over a term. They went to dance organisations and theatre organisations. They learnt about what it was like to be an artist and how to borrow artists' techniques that they could go back and use in the classroom. They went back refreshed and enthused about their own creativity. Of course, the children had an enormously good time as a result, and it benefited the school in all sorts of ways. Those teachers will stay in teaching, I believe, because that has helped them to rediscover some sense of why they had gone into it in the first place. However, finding the time to take them out of the classroom caused problems. That is a problem: if we are to have structured professional development, that means, in the short term, that people will have to be taken out of the classroom and it might be difficult to provide cover.
	There are many more things that, I hope, the Government will consider. The National College of School Leadership is definitely making a major difference to the way that head teachers perform and to the way that schools perform. However, we need more support for middle management. The induction year is an excellent idea, but we do not have the skilled managers to provide support to young teachers in their first year, which makes all the difference. How many young teachers have been turned off because their first encounter with a group of stroppy 13 year-olds dedicated to wrecking the lesson has not been supported? No one has been able to help them with the day-to-day realities.
	The problems of recruitment and retention are not unique to Britain. It does not help to know that. But we have to rise to the challenge of creating a framework for the teaching profession which is about a buoyant economy and not a failing economy.
	The Secretary of State referred to the remodelling of the profession. It is a radical term and could mean a radical solution. It may not be a McCrone solution for England, but it is certainly worth looking at some of the ideas put forward, for example, by the Institute of Public Policy Research in terms of what can be done about time in the classroom, including the time necessary for preparing lessons. It put forward many good ideas. I hope there will be lots of access courses for classroom assistants and all school staff. As the noble Baroness said, they know a great deal about schools and can make a great contribution.
	Finally, I turn to the word "trust" about which we have heard so much today. Trust must be there for all our public servants, particularly the teachers. It is not only their task to care for children, but also to create that ability to think independently which goes on to make them critical and contributory servants in society. So let us build up that trust. I believe we are doing that now. For some years there was a lot to answer for, but we are now on our way.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lady Walmsley for raising this important issue and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on an excellent maiden speech. I congratulate other participants on what has been a good debate.
	This Question raises a difficult issue. In this country we have a teaching force of 450,000 full-timers and 50,000 part-timers, so we are looking at roughly 500,000 teachers. Each year we are seeking in the region of 30,000 recruits for the teaching profession. Of that 30,000, we now know that one in three will drop out during training, so that only 20,000 end up completing their teacher training course. One in 10 of those will drop out in the NQT year, so of the 30,000 who begin only 18,000 are left. Another one in 10 will drop out during the following two years. So at the end of the first five years we are looking at somewhere in the region of a 50 per cent drop-out rate. Of the 30,000 initially recruited only 15,000 or 16,000 are left.
	That in itself poses a problem. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley indicated, a cost is involved here. If we reckon on it costing £12,500 to train each teacher, that is not a small amount. In the community we have around 300,000 people trained as teachers but not now practising as teachers. If we multiply that by £12,500, we reach a figure of around £6 billion. That is the waste of resources that has aggregated over the past 20 years. So it is an issue with which we should be concerned.
	It is also important that we keep in the teaching profession those whom we have trained. The disturbing statistic is that if we reckoned that those who have been trained would stay in the profession for 35 years, we would be looking for 15,000 recruits every year and not 30,000. That extra 15,000 has to be recruited every year because that is the annual drop-out rate.
	That issue is particularly critical in the secondary schools. We have enough recruits to fill the primary school places and do not need to worry too much about that. But there is a real crisis of recruitment in the secondary schools, particularly in some of the shortage subjects. We had a good debate in this House not too long ago on the language subjects; shortages include also science, history and religious knowledge. It is amazing now how many subjects have become shortage subjects.
	I am particularly concerned about mathematics—this was mentioned in the Tomlinson report and in the debate on the Statement today—where we have almost reached the point of no return. Fewer than 75 per cent of kids are now being taught maths in secondary schools by maths specialists. As the Tomlinson report indicates, one of the results of this is that the kids are not turned on. Not enough children are taking A-levels in order to go on and do maths at university and therefore to provide our teachers. It is a serious crisis that we need to address.
	We need to worry also about the drop-out rate in headships. In the past year, more than 2,500 heads quit their posts. Twelve per cent of secondary schools and 11 per cent of primary schools had to advertise for new heads, and 19 per cent of the secondaries and 31 per cent of the primaries were unable to fill their posts the first time round. There are more than 400 vacancies for headships. These are the leaders of the profession and it is vital that we get good people to fill these posts. If they are missing, a link in the whole chain is missing.
	Why are there such high rates of wastage in the profession? Again, we had some discussion of these issues today. It is notable that the survey in the Times Educational Supplement showed that the profession is relatively content. The long hours and the high workloads are the issues that teachers are really worried about.
	Last year, Demos carried out a survey of the teaching profession and discovered that 79 per cent of people join it because they want to work with young children. This rings a bell. When you talk to teachers and ask them why they are there they say, "I love working with children. I love the children. If only it weren't for the awful hours". One hears that time and time again.
	There is no doubt that teachers are worried about these issues. Although the comparatively low pay explains part of the problem, it does not explain the recruiting crisis or the drop-out rate. Teachers are concerned about the quality of their whole professional life, about poor pupil behaviour and the stress it causes and about the volume of paperwork, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred.
	I should like to draw two points to your Lordship's attention. The first concerns the media's portrayal of teachers. There is an increasing tendency in the media to portray them as people who are constantly harassed in their work. This does not do them full justice. In some ways it would be nice to see a soap about teachers. Nevertheless, there are problems in that area.
	The other point concerns the degree to which the reforms we have seen have been constant. The whole basis is that there are initiatives and initiatives and initiatives. I think it is called "initiativitis" or something like that. It is important that we recognise that within society things happen through influencing institutions. The teaching profession is an institution. Any institution in society can take so much change but not too much change. You cannot expect to change the parameters too frequently or in too many dimensions. If you do this—and we have seen it happen in this country in institutions such as local government, teaching and the health service—it destabilises that institution. Arguably, we have destabilised the teaching profession to some degree. We need to give it a chance to recover.
	What do we need to do to achieve this? Mike Tomlinson's report gave us some ideas. It was pointed out in the Minister's Statement today that the Pisa study from the OECD indicates that in this country we have seen educational standards increase, whereas in most other European countries they have been standing still. The combination of the stick and the carrot—the high aspirational level set for teachers, on the one hand, and encouraging them to change their practices on the other—has been important. The problem is the degree to which these initiatives have been centralised. The pressure was too strong and the stress on teachers was too great. They were not given enough of a chance to do their own thing, or enough space in their lives to think for themselves. That alienated them. Constant carping criticisms came from the former chief inspector of schools which wore them down.
	The summary chapter at the beginning of the Demos report states:
	"Centralised change has failed to engage many, if not most, teachers and has resulted in suspicion of, if not hostility to reform. If both schools and the culture of educational practitioners are to be transformed then the creativity and energy of the professionals need to be drawn on fully".
	That point, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—the lord of the dance—is about the unleashing of creativity of professionals, which is desperately important. Part of that is trust. We have to reorient ourselves.
	What would we Liberal Democrats do to change the centralised culture to one that allows more room, freedom and space for teachers to do their own thing? There is room to cut back on the national curriculum and to concentrate more on a core curriculum. We want to limit testing. There is no reason to test at seven or at 14, although we would keep key stage 2 testing and some kind of school certification. Phil Willis, our spokesman in the other place has made it clear that we have great reservations about the GCSE as a school-leaving certificate. We should like to see a wider form of certification at that point.
	We feel strongly about the need to restore a sense of profession to the teacher. My noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned that we argued long ago for a general teaching council and we are delighted to see what the GTC is now doing. We urge it to become the key area of registration for teachers and to be the teachers' regulator, independent of government. We also welcome the degree to which heads are now being put through leadership training, which is vital. We have always said that if there is a good head it is a good school. Such leadership training is necessary as it does not come naturally from teacher training. We should prefer to see fewer but perhaps more relevant targets. Above all, we want to move away from centralised control.
	The chief inspector's report was an important turning point. For the first time we have heard the chief inspector saying how important it is to recognise what our teaching profession has achieved. We are praising our teachers, which is right because they have done so much and have worked so hard. From today's report, I hope that we can move forward to develop a new trust with our teachers and give them a little more space to get on with the creativity and joy of teaching because they really do enjoy it. I hope that this will be a new beginning and that we can develop a new culture, which is what the Demos report argued for.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as most noble Lords have said, there is a crisis of teacher retention in our schools. The wastage in student teachers and newly qualified teachers is an enormous problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has done the House a great service by introducing the debate in an attempt to discover what the Government intend to do to remedy the matter. It has also given us the opportunity to hear the excellent maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.
	No doubt we shall hear from the Minister that recruitment to initial teacher training is at an all-time high, but that ignores the fact that many students do not complete the training, many others complete the training but do not go into teaching and many of those who enter teaching leave within the first three years.
	Last year, the NUT commissioned Professor Alan Smithers of Liverpool University to examine the reasons underlying the problem. His report, Teachers Leaving, made depressing reading and confirmed that 12 per cent of trainees never finish their course, 33 per cent of graduates do not go into teaching and 18 per cent of those who graduate leave within the first three years. That represents a costly attrition of much-needed professionals from our classrooms. The initial teacher training budget is currently £245 million. Those trends represent an annual waste of £100 million.
	By the Government's own admission, the number of unqualified teachers has almost doubled since 1997. When this Government came to office with the slogan that their first three priorities would be "Education, education, education", there were 2,940 teachers without qualified teacher status. By October 2001, the number had risen to 5,620.
	An additional cause for concern is the ageing population of teachers, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. More than 61 per cent of teachers are over 40 and 42 per cent of teachers are between 40 and 50. Professor Smithers' report found that teachers were leaving the classroom because of a feeling of not being valued, because of the workload pressures, because of stress and pupil misbehaviour and because of a surfeit of new government initiatives, such as the review of the Curriculum 2000 initiative.
	Then we had the fiasco of the Government losing the judicial review on the impractical performance-related pay scheme, which the judge rejected in such scathing terms that, except in the case of an arrogant Government, it ought to have resulted in the resignation of the Secretary of State, who never the less was promoted instead.
	Only on Friday, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, plaintively begged the public not to blame his successor as Secretary of State for Education for everything that goes wrong. I accept that she cannot be blamed for everything that goes wrong, but he has obviously not heard of President Truman's aphorism, "The buck stops here".
	The most obvious example of a U-turn has been on the policy of exclusions, which is an issue directly related to classroom discipline. While he was Secretary of State for Education, Mr Blunkett made it almost impossible for schools to maintain serious discipline. He did this by creating rigid guidelines and arbitrary targets to cut exclusions by a third by this year—2002. Those targets bore no relationship to the problem of behaviour.
	To her credit, the present Secretary of State has reversed that policy, saying
	"Disruptive behaviour wears down teachers, interferes with the education of other pupils and condemns some children to failure at school and long-term problems".
	The Conservative Opposition, the teaching unions and, most significantly, teachers themselves, as well as many parents, said the same at the time, but the Government chose to ignore them.
	When questioned, 45 per cent of teachers leaving the profession cited poor pupil behaviour as the reason. It continues to be a very serious problem, particularly in the more urban areas.
	The number of teachers injured by pupils is increasing and the sanctions available to teachers have been reduced. David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers has said:
	"A rising tide of pupil misbehaviour has hit primary schools with the inevitable result that heads will exclude pupils who are damaging the education of the rest of the class".
	More power to control indiscipline should be given to the heads and governors and more support should be forthcoming for parents whose children are totally out of control.
	However, one factor that has taken the gloss off the U-turn by the Secretary of State is that when a school excludes a pupil, it suffers a financial penalty by means of a capitation loss.
	In the real world it is usually the case that where exclusion is the answer, the school will have undoubtedly spent a huge and disproportionate amount of funding and teacher resources in doing everything in its power to bring the situation under control. Exclusion is really the very last thing on its mind.
	Excessive bureaucracy and a bewildering number of so-called "initiatives" are also high on the list of reasons why teachers leave the profession. Julia Grant, president of the ATL, said,
	"Unless the Government offers some radical solutions to the teachers' workload, nothing will stem the growing haemorrhage of good teachers".
	The ink is hardly on the School Standards and Framework Act and its plethora of regulations which impose endless bureaucratic tasks on teachers. Teachers are overwhelmed by the relentless preparation of plans, co-ordinating meetings, responding to initiatives, bidding processes, and Whitehall's insatiable appetite for information most of which, I suspect, gathers dust and which adds little to the well-being of a child in the classroom.
	Initiative overload certainly takes its toll on teachers. Hardly a week goes by without another announcement of the launch of yet another initiative backed by X million pounds, sometimes even double-counted millions. Many of the initiatives absorb the funding and energies of bureaucrats and teachers only to be abandoned and allowed to wither on the vine. Worse still, even if the initiative does not work, the cost of rolling it out to all schools has to be absorbed by the schools themselves.
	That leads me to the central issue of funding. Unprecedented sums of money are held back at national level to fund various Government schemes. That means that however much the Government boast about the additional money for education, the fact is that core funding at school level is not increasing proportionately.
	In the time allowed to me I would like to just touch on the other issue of funding which will affect schools in the coming year. The Government have announced pay increases and accelerated pay scales which are substantially beyond the capacity of local authorities without substantially increasing their council tax or of cutting other services. For schools it could mean reducing staffing levels in order to meet the pay awards. I do not see how that will ameliorate the teacher shortages that have been highlighted by so many noble Lords during this debate.
	As I have said, we might hear today that the problem is not so great and that more teachers than ever are now being employed. However, I still believe that will mask many problems that simply must be addressed. For example, there is the unprecedented number of supply teachers who are recruited regularly. According to a recent report, some pupils had 13 teachers in as many weeks.
	There is also the problem of teachers required to teach subjects for which they are not trained, which is obviously bound to affect standards over time. As the Chief Inspector of Schools himself has said,
	"You are more likely to have newly qualified, supply and unqualified teachers teaching at key stage 3".
	Our teachers who remain in teaching despite the problems deserve our full support and appreciation. They are of course the key to our children's future. However, their life could be made more tolerable and more teachers would be attracted to stay in the profession if there were less interference from the centre, less bureaucracy, greater professional autonomy and if a greater proportion of the central government education budget could be transferred to our schools.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her Unstarred Question and noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a stimulating debate. It has indeed been a day of education. I am especially grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for his fantastic speech on, for me, the ethos of schools and their atmosphere, which we all recognise when we walk in. I have no doubt that he will have much to say in our debates on the Education Bill and when we touch on the issue of safe schools, a matter which he also raised.
	"The Lord of the Dance"—as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has now become—referred to me as Liza with her bucket. So I intend to adopt as my theme, "With what shall I mend it?" This debate has raised three issues that are of great importance to the future of the teaching profession, and I assure the House that the Government recognise the need for serious and sustained action on each of them. Failure to take action would place in jeopardy our commitment to continue to raise standards in schools, which remains as high on our agenda in this Parliament as it did in the last.
	Many themes have come out of this debate. The need to recognise teachers is one that is shared by those on the Government Benches and especially by this Minister and the Secretary of State—to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, paid tribute in a manner that I felt was wholly appropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, heard said on his way to the debate, respect for teachers is crucial. I am sure that every noble Lord would agree with his comments on that point and with the teacher whom he met this morning. It must have been an extraordinary experience for her.
	The issues are as follows. First, how can we encourage more of our most talented people to train as teachers, and give them the support that they need while training, to bring as many as possible to qualification? Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, we need teachers to qualify in subjects such as maths, science, modern foreign languages and technology. Secondly, how can we ensure that the enthusiasm that brought them into teacher training is not blunted by hard experience? Their enthusiasm must carry them from qualification into their first application for a teaching job and their early years in the classroom. Thirdly, how can we ensure that our new teachers are not lost to the profession after a few years but go on to develop long-term careers in teaching?
	I shall start by saying a few words about those who are now coming into initial teacher training. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely right that I am going to say that teacher numbers are increasing. I do so, however, not from a sense of complacency but from the belief that some of the things we are trying to do are beginning to work.
	Noble Lords are aware of the impact of the teacher training bursaries that the Government introduced from September 2000. We inherited declining recruitment to training. By 1999-2000, the number of trainees coming forward had decreased for eight consecutive years. If that trend had been allowed to continue it would have seriously endangered our ability to replenish the stock of teachers in the medium term. The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Miller, also referred to the fact that the teacher population is ageing. We need to be aware of that fact.
	When the training bursaries were announced, the number of inquiries about teacher training received by the Teacher Training Agency leapt to an all-time high. That level of interest has risen still further in the two intervening years. Interest was soon translated into increasing numbers of applicants, and for the 2000-01 academic year there was a 7 per cent increase in total recruitment to training. A further 5 per cent increase followed in 2001-02. Tomorrow morning the Graduate Teacher Training Registry will publish the PGCE applications figures to date for 2002-03. I am sure that all noble Lords await those figures with interest.
	The quality of our trainees has sometimes been subject to unfair criticism. It has been said, for example, that increasing recruitment is reducing the overall academic standards of entrants. There is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. Our evidence shows that the average degree pass of new postgraduate trainees has remained stable for a number of years, with about half of all new entrants holding an upper second or better. I should perhaps add that degree class is not, in any event, an entirely reliable indicator of how effective a teacher a candidate will be. Moreover, almost all teachers coming into the classroom nowadays are effective. That is one reason why, as the Chief Inspector of Schools' annual report noted today, the number of good, very good or excellent lessons has risen to its highest ever level.
	It has also been said that a rising recruitment rate is being negated by a rising drop-out rate. Authoritative figures on how many of that cohort successfully completed their training will not be available until later this year. However, last week the results of an independent study of wastage from PGCE courses in 2000-01 were published. The sample was very large, comprising more than half the trainees recruited in that year. The results showed that only 11.3 per cent failed to complete their courses. In the previous year, the overall course failure rate was 13.5 per cent.
	We believe that the position is improving, and it is not difficult to see why. The training bursaries and the fact that the Government pay the tuition fees of graduate trainees are encouraging more people to consider and enter teacher training. They are also enabling more of them to stay the course who in previous years might have abandoned it.
	Completion rates will never be 100 per cent. Teacher training is demanding and the standards required are very high. However good they look on paper, some trainees will simply fail to meet them. Others will decide, on exposure to the realities of the job, that teaching is not a career for them. But what we have tried to do, and I believe we have succeeded, is to reduce the number of potentially good teachers forced to give up their ambitions simply because they cannot afford them. I take on board the point that both the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Andrews made about the need to track that information to give more detail. I shall take that idea back to the department, provided it does not involve asking teachers anything as we do not want to increase bureaucracy for them, as I said before.
	The second key issue that I want to address briefly has also attracted more than its share of unreliable statistics. Higher recruitment to training may be producing more newly qualified teachers, we are told, but more of them are failing to enter a teaching job. The latest figures at our disposal show that over 70 per cent of those teachers who qualify in England are teaching in the maintained sector in England by March of the year after they qualify, and that 80 per cent will have taught in the maintained sector in England within four years of qualifying. Of course, other teachers will find jobs in, for example, Scotland and Wales.
	That is closely linked to a third issue. The story continues to the effect that those new teachers who do enter the classroom leave again in droves after only a couple of years. Any noble Lord who studies the latest official figures will know that, indeed, some 20 per cent of those who started teaching in England in 1997 were no longer doing so three years later. That is a sobering statistic, even though it does not take account of the fact that many of those who leave the profession subsequently return to it. In the latest year for which figures are available, there were 36,000 entrants to teaching in England, 10,000 of whom were teachers returning to the profession after a break in their careers. Furthermore, as noble Lords are aware, the total number of teachers has continued to rise, by no fewer than 11,000 since 1997.
	Nevertheless, the Government have never sought to conceal the fact that too many of those who qualify as teachers never teach, and that too many younger teachers leave teaching never to return. Every percentage point by which we can reduce teacher wastage means over 4,000 teachers in the classroom who would not otherwise have been there. My noble friend Lady Andrews spoke of regional variations which are an important factor—the relevant figure is 4.3 per cent for inner London compared to an average of 1.4 per cent. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that the number of unqualified teachers has doubled. The number has risen but mainly because of new employment-based training programmes such as the graduate teacher programme. That is largely why the figure has risen.
	It is clear that we must make careers in teaching more attractive, financially and otherwise. We also need to make them more sustainable, to prevent teachers being worn down by the reality of life in the classroom. This is what we are striving to achieve. All teachers have already enjoyed three above-inflation pay rises in a row. Following my right honourable friend's acceptance of this year's recommendations, a fourth is in prospect from 1st April. Pay for a good, experienced teacher is already 25 per cent higher than it was in 1997, 12 per cent higher in real terms. Teachers at the start of their careers last year received a pay rise of almost 6 per cent. This year, their pay will again rise by more than inflation. Gradually, we are making teaching better able to compete with the rewards that other careers can offer. The General Teaching Council, which I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a Liberal Democrat idea—if that is the case, I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats for that—has played a major part in supporting teachers in that way.
	I must mention the contribution that induction for newly qualified teachers is making. We need to ensure continuous professional development in schools. I acknowledge the concept of heads being judged by their commitment to continuous professional development—that is an interesting concept which we shall consider—and the role of middle managers in supporting teachers. I believe that my noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned that point. We also know that school leadership is important and that school leaders new to headship need a good support system. We have therefore asked the National College for School Leadership to review the relevant programme in order to maximise the support given to heads as they take up their first headship post.
	Noble Lords mentioned paper and e-mails. I understand that point. We have made a commitment to reduce teachers' workloads which is perhaps the most frequent factor cited in research into why teachers leave the profession. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report is now being considered by the pay review body. It confirms the extent to which teacher workloads have been rising, largely because we are expecting our teachers to be clerical officers and administrators for too much of their time. The document states:
	"Teachers in many schools perceive a lack of control and ownership over their work, undertaking tasks—particularly documentation—which they do not believe are necessary to support learning, or which could be done by support staff rather than by teachers or more efficiently using Information and Communications Technology".
	What has been done in Scotland is interesting but is a matter for Scotland. Our discussions have recognised that flexibility is important at local level and that is something for which teachers and head teachers will be looking. Together with that goes the use of other professionals who are able to develop their skills to work alongside teachers.
	Behaviour and exclusion has been cited again and again as a key reason for teachers leaving the profession. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned perceptions of what teaching is like—and this may touch on the role of the media. We know that behaviour and exclusion is a problem but many schools are dealing with it effectively and efficiently. It is our job to support them.
	Having cut exclusions by one third from a high figure, it is important to ensure that children who are excluded will receive the full-time education that they need and deserve, regardless of the circumstances, to help them return to mainstream education where that is possible.
	We are addressing all those issues. Our positive vision for the teaching profession is that which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State described to the Social Market Foundation on 12th November. If the workload is to be cut significantly, teaching must be helped to modernise. We need not only to recruit more support staff but to use them better—helping qualified teachers to shed tasks that could more sensibly be done by support staff. We need to release at last the full classroom potential for information and communication technology.
	We need to see that remodelling of the school workforce as part of the modernisation of the teaching profession. We must free teachers to spend their time on activities that can make a real difference to pupil achievement and to concentrate on the ideals that brought them into the profession in the first place—ideals mentioned by many noble Lords. Measures to assist in that respect will be my right honourable friend's top priority in the current spending review—your Lordships heard it here first—that concludes in July 2002. The Education Bill that will shortly come before the House is designed to make its contribution. I am sure that we will have many opportunities to debate whether the Bill contains draconian powers but within it, trusting teachers and allowing schools to innovate is key.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, used a good reinventing government phrase about deciding what we want people to do, then getting them to understand and doing it. I would argue that we have done that with our literacy and numeracy strategy—designed a system, explained it and let teachers implement it. It is the achievements of teachers every day in the classroom that we celebrate, not ours. I am sure that Sir John Harvey-Jones would agree with that analysis.
	Despite the progress made, recruitment and retention problems in teacher training are not yet solved. We know that there is more to do and we are committed to doing it. We have talked about stability and the need to ensure that teachers have time to bed down the initiatives. We have talked about workload, bureaucracy and the need to communicate appropriately with teachers. We have talked also about continuing professional development—the means by which we ensure that skills are constantly upgraded, which is part of teachers feeling valued and rewarded—and working closely with all those involved.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned Ecclesiastes and said that this is the time to say thank you. The chief inspector's report and the responses of all noble Lords tonight have been a definite echo of the need to say thank you to all our teachers. We need to get the message across to teachers that they are indeed valued. They provide a more than important service to all the young people in our country. We benefit from teachers. The next generation, with the fantastic group of teachers that they have, will benefit even more.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, described teachers as having an interpersonal gift—a wonderful phrase that precisely describes them.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.